You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.
I'm getting the impression that Rekieta is really genuinely hurt by his old audience and KF rejecting him, judging by how much he has to keep reassuring himself he doesn't care.
It's actually getting a little sad. Despite his claims, it seems like he was way more invested in the idea that he was a trad role model than his audience was.
I don't know, I'm no bliblical scholar, but I've read Genesis and guys like Jacob were alternating between piping down both his cousins (?), and both of their maids (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah). It's probably easier to not look at anyone except your wife when you've got like 6 of them.
And Jacob was definitely holy going by the bible. God blessed him personally and gave him the name Israel.
It's supposed to be the same god from beginning to end, so they should all have to play by the exact same rules from the beginning of Genesis all the way through the end of Revelation, no?
If not, so if anyone disagrees that people in later passages should be subject to the exact same divine code since it was a different time period from Genesis or w/e, then why exactly should the teachings you're referencing be considered applicable to this time period now almost 2000 years later?
Google says that Ecclesiastes was written in about 180BC, Jacob lived around 1700 BC. That means the time between when Jacob lived and when Ecclesiastes was written, was shorter than the time between when Ecclesiastes was written and now.
People pick and choose passages from the bible to lend some false sense of authority to their personal moral narrative, when the reality is that as a work it's regularly self-contradictory and contains a lot of extremely questionable behavior from supposedly good and holy people, which the before mentioned believers will simply hand-wave. It does not stand up to critical analysis except as a pseudo-historical record, and maybe as entertainment, because a lot of the stories are off the handle.
Maybe I'm being a grumpy internet athiest, but the entire trad bible-thumping thing seems very dumb. God is dead, embrace the Nietzschean ideal.
Plus a key point there is it's meant to warn young men, I doubt the bible covered how to handle midlife crises because everyone back then was dead by the time they were 40.
I’m going to hold my autism in, but Jacob’s personal story with Esau and fucking over his brother is basically reversed with his Uncle screwing him on a deal. Jacob’s story is effectively struggling with God. He makes up with his brother after years of slaving away at a bad deal.
Jacob’s story is before Sirrach was put down. Jacob is literally one of the Patriarch that started the religion. Sirrach at most might’ve been the musings of Solomon carried on through tradition until put down.
Nietzsche is a German faggot who got tired of Germans forming weird splinter churches out of autism and the French buck breaking Germans with Papal decrees. His issues with Catholicism are literally because he’s a Buck Broken German nigger.
That's a funny idea, by your logic he'd be fine with Nick being a closeted degenerate but he wouldn't tolerate mixed loads?
...You made me laugh too hard...
If I had five kids and the dad wasn’t pulling his weight, I’d absolutely have a nanny too. Hell I might have one anyway because five kids is a fucking lot.
I don't know, I'm no bliblical scholar, but I've read Genesis and guys like Jacob were alternating between piping down both his cousins (?), and both of their maids (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah). It's probably easier to not look at anyone except your wife when you've got like 6 of them.
And Jacob was definitely holy going by the bible. God blessed him personally and gave him the name Israel.
An extra sperg, though, is that Genesis' polyamorous marriages were disasters, and most of the stories detail Leah being unloved despite being the first wife, Abraham thinking he has to bone a maid for God's promises to come true, Abraham pimping out his wife by telling everyone they're just brother and sister, etc. We see the consequences of people making their own set of rules around marriage and relationships and the generational collapse that favoritism and jealousy and adultery cause, which is fitting with the structure of most OT literature as a long cycle of fucking around and finding out, even for practices that would have been widely accepted by the culture at the time.
I wouldn't read it as everything the Israelites do as being co-signed by God. Most of what they get up to is stuff he lets them do after telling them it's not a good idea, while leaving the choice up to them. It's only after they stop and listen to what he's saying that they are rewarded or their personal relationships improve. You'll also see clear differences between the rabbinical laws as sort of iffy necessities in a painful world (widows being remarried to a man with multiple wives, so she can be provided for materially) and the moral law, which would be how God intended for people to live, in a way that is fulfilling and good (and we do get in the first couple of chapters of Genesis the "one man, one wife, one flesh" construction). Polygamy is one of those things that only seems to show up when biblical characters are deciding they're just gonna wing it instead of thinking about whether it's something that's super moral and righteous.
Plus a key point there is it's meant to warn young men, I doubt the bible covered how to handle midlife crises because everyone back then was dead by the time they were 40.
Why hope for redemption at this point? The guy's been showing his true colors and you hope he puts the mask back on? He easily forsakes the audience that gave him the traction and momentum which allowed his Rittenhouse and subsequently Depp streams to blow up like they did. When LegalBytes was trying to start some bullshit with him over the Depp trial coverage, he rightfully reminded her that it was him that allowed her to come on his show and get the exposure that she did in the first place. She looked like an ungrateful cunt because she was. Same story here. He has zero appreciation for the audience that have followed him since the early days, helping him build up from nothing, and is happy to throw them under the bus when he thinks they're no longer necessary.
The hell would a redemption arc even look like for him? What can he say that would earn your respect back? "Okay, so I know I said and did a lot of things over the past months that have flown in the face of the values I used to say were important. And emphasized that I've always been that way. And berated you all for holding me to the values I berated others for not holding. But uh... It hasn't been working out. So, I'd like to put that genie back in the bottle and go back to the way things were. No, this time I'm being genuine. Trust me."
Actions would speak a bit louder. He could sell his stupid boomer car that he can't drive. Purge the disgusting hag whores on that awful fucking site he's been shilling for the last year. (Or better yet, get rid of it because it's nothing but a blight on his show. Not that he likely even could with his contract now.) Never ever bring his vapid whore of a wife onto the show again, or share their activities. He could try holding his own intervention, though I wonder if anyone in his social circle has the stones to throw him anything other than softballs followed by reassuring asspats.
But, nah. Motherfucker chose his path. He gleefully burned away his goodwill and trust on the altar of coom, and he can live with the fallout of that decision. Laughing with him at Jack Murphies or idubbbzes is a thing of the past, because now it'd come right back around to clock this faggot in his own hypocritical face.
Nestorianism is Jesus Christ being of two natures, one Devine and one human. As opposed to being a union of two natures both fully Devine and human(Chalcedon) or being one nature both Devine and human(Miaphysites)
Honestly this above my paygrade to talk about. And someone much smarter than me once explained it that Chalcedonian creed makes more sense in Latin and Greek than it does in other languages and this thing might be in part a physical difficulty to translate the concept.
But I think at the core of it all share one thing. Jesus Christ, God has sacrificed Himself for us. Not just a man, not a construct or an apparition. But God Himself for His love of man and to grant us forgiveness bared the biggest cross. If Jesus Christ was nothing but a man than it's just another human dying for other humans, which while selfless it does nothing for divine interaction and also not a foreign concept in Christianity without that.
There are sects that claim that Jesus is human and not divine in any way (much like Judaism and Muslims might), but most of the sects do hold him in higher regard.
Well, whatever Hoeg's faults, at least he can't be faulted for making it so that his kids will one day have to reckon with their alcoholic father openly talking about inserting his balls in mommy.
TO be fair, Arianism isn't that Jesus was just a man, it is that Jesus is not coeternal with the Father, ie that Jesus was created/born/made by the Father at a later date. My understanding is that Arianism itself doesn't question the divinity of Christ, just that Christ is beholden to the Father.
If Rackets actually questions the divinity of Christ, that is far beyond Arianism, that is some other heresy I am forgetting the name of.
So I'm the guy who asked the question and emailed him. TLDR it was probably the most shameless(Nick) and fruitless endeavor.
I'm conflicted as to whether I should post the emails or not as Nick did respond in confidence and good faith but his answers were shit
So I'm the guy who asked the question and emailed him. TLDR it was probably the most shameless(Nick) and fruitless endeavor.
I'm conflicted as to whether I should post the emails or not as Nick did respond in confidence and good faith but his answers were shit
Not so much as I gave confidence rather he asked to be contacted via email rather than youtube and took the time to respond. Not sure if that treads any boundaries of integrity or not
Its the same as with any cow. Redeption is possible when they stop being a cow and stop doing cow things.
The first step is to become boring and stop digging the hole deeper. Nick needs to stop the cope, stop trying to share his sex life, chase off the wine aunts and stop talking about it. Give us nothing to talk about in this thread.
The second step to redemption is to generate some sort of interesting content again. Be amusing or entertaining or informative in a non-cow way.
There is a certain level of respect a cow can't get back and their cow era is always going to haunt them if they ever make fun of someone else. It can't ever be like it originally was. But they can get off the cow path and be respected to a point.
Now, give me a second here. That's how you react to a parent. That's how you react to an authority figure. And I'd realized this, but it threw me for a loop as to why he'd even conceivably be rebelling, in some weird way, against a bunch of retarded autists on Kiwi Farms, of all people, as if we were his dad.
The audience being the parent? We're entering meta levels of parasocial relationship I've never imagined before. Sounds like a good way to give a kid faux-schizophrenia.
So I'm the guy who asked the question and emailed him. TLDR it was probably the most shameless(Nick) and fruitless endeavor.
I'm conflicted as to whether I should post the emails or not as Nick did respond in confidence and good faith but his answers were shit
Don't post it, I'll take you at your word about how shit his answers were. Based on the tone from your messages I assume you actually want to help Nick pull his head out of his arse. The little reactions like yours could maybe mount up over time. I won't hold my breath, but I'd still rather go back to enjoying his legal news adjacent content than laugh at him spiraling. I'll still laugh, but I'd enjoy a redemption more.
Hit his personal rock bottom, flat out apologize for his actions (to God for a personal redemption, to his audience for a public one), and then grind and grind and grind and grind until he earns back a sliver of the reputation he's thrown in the gutter.
I'm catching up on Monday's show now, my first since before Christmas. Nothing gay as fuck yet, but I'm not that far in yet.
Edit: 25 fucking minutes in, fucking hell the wine moms are superchatting this shit into existence. Nick is going to a Tattoo convention this week and IMMEDIATELY there was a joke from chat about tattooing a balldo onto his balls and that he should get a tramp stamp. He said he wouldn't do either so who wants to take bets on whether he'll do one or both?
Exactly the opposite. The mask is the only reason he's a cow now. He should probably chill a bit on the incredibly cringy midlife crisis, but nobody would really be criticizing him if he'd been an open degenerate from the start. Mr. Peacock is probably a complete degenerate himself but nobody is dissing him for it. Even Drex's open degeneracy is pretty much tolerated because he doesn't present it as something good that anyone should emulate.
Huh? He never had my respect for some bogus moralistic Jesus shit anyway. And obviously there's no set of magic words he could say to get back what he never had. I just liked having someone who could talk about legal topics in a way that wasn't soul-crushingly boring. He didn't have to have some Richard Posner level takes to be amusing.
I'm getting the impression that Rekieta is really genuinely hurt by his old audience and KF rejecting him, judging by how much he has to keep reassuring himself he doesn't care.
If Nick is genuinely surprised that the audience he gained from being a person who covered legal topics/briefs and mocked people for being brazenly open about their personal lives is pissed off he is now being a person who is brazenly open about his personal life and does not cover legal topics/briefs, it just goes to show that an advanced degree does not prevent you from being functionally retarded...which shouldn't be surprising, but still.
