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.
Journalist-brain of yours and take one good look at this guy. Do you see someone without any kind of substance abuse issue? How about someone that really doesn't need anymore encouragement with this path he's chosen? What kind of crappy journalist are you? Unless of course you're planning this big grand manifesto story on why to never put on the Balldo, but I highly doubt that's the case.
While Megan is not as bad (yet) as Aussie taking in a known catfish after knowing all the information out there and continuing the lie, I think she and Gosney are starting to get there.
You see, your first and really only mistake was to consider a journalist is a human and would act like one.
They are not. They are below vermin and not a single one of them has been able to behave in any other fashion than one befitting their stature as such, some are better at hiding it however it always shines through.
If she ever stages anything resembling an intervention and attempting to tell Nicky that maybe drinking 3 macallan bottles a day is not a good idea it will be after his clout is so thoroughly spent his only use is as a feelgood story of the brave journalist who attempted to get a drunk friend to see the light.
You see, your first and really only mistake was to consider a journalist is a human and would act like one.
They are not. They are below vermin and not a single one of them has been able to behave in any other fashion than one befitting their stature as such, some are better at hiding it however it always shines through.
Listen, I could go on a 120 page long dissertation-diatribe about why journalists are antihuman filth and how the "golden era" of journalism is a mythological construct.
However I would rather not derail this thread with that kind of weapons-grade autism so I'll keep it succinct: it's not at all surprising that a reporter is an hypocrite, these are the same people who, in an act similar to how a certain group of well-off politispergs appropriated the term and ideal of being a "worker" to use as a convenient cudgel, have appropriated the term and ideal of "free speech" to use as a convenient shield to deflect any and all criticism; it therefore follows in what passes for a mind in these flesh pods that their actions are for a righteous cause while the actions of those of the out group never have such a justification.
For a very clear example of this, see Taylor "80 year old granny" Lorenz crying about getting doxed and harassed while she goes on to "unmask" and "ask hard hitting questions" using her credentials as a catch-all.
tl;dr : she doesn't forget her profession, hypocrisy is the biggest part of it.
His drunken, edgy 2005 ‘what’s the best thing about sex with a pregnant woman?’ joke was so cringe, made worse by his awkward delivery skinnily squirming around in his seat.
It reminded me of when Chris Chan would try to pull off an edgy joke, or repeat something he thought was cool that he had heard someone else say.
Almost unbearable to watch.
And just so I am not misunderstood - i believe the only thing she's scared of is loss of shekels and attention due to Nick casting a nasty dark shadow on the whole lawtube sektur. He lifted them up, now he's dragging all of them down.
What she's certainly not scared of is her loss of reputation, or Nick self-harming through alcohol, or thousands of very dumb people, who still unironically watch this, becoming corrupted degenerates because of Nicks' sick concept of what constitutes a good joke (gross perverted shit) or a good movie (gross perverted shit).
Surely, if she'd be scared of any of that, she would never willingly associate with Rekieta or come to his stream.
His drunken, edgy 2005 ‘what’s the best thing about sex with a pregnant woman?’ joke was so cringe, made worse by his awkward delivery skinnily squirming around in his seat.
It reminded me of when Chris Chan would try to pull off an edgy joke, or repeat something he thought was cool that he had heard someone else say.
Almost unbearable to watch.
that's honestly so vile. I can't imagine thinking about making this joke to anyone (including myself) let alone a normie mom like megan fox. Racket's lack of inhibition is less frightening than the fact that this joke was something he inhibited in the first place.
And just so I am not misunderstood - i believe the only thing she's scared of is loss of shekels and attention due to Nick casting a nasty dark shadow on the whole lawtube sektur. He lifted them up, now he's dragging all of them down.
Look, if she's trying to "fix" Nick (for her own benefit, or otherwise), she's a stupid bimbo. Nobody is gonna fix Nick but Nick. For one thing, he's too far up his own ass.
If anyone in Lawtube is concerned about Nick affecting their reputation, the solution to most of that is to stop going on his fucking show, or inviting him on yours. Sean and Andrew haven't been on in a long time now, and they seem to be doing just fine. He's only the "Lawpope" if you accept him as such. Nobody in a position of actual authority anointed him the "Lawpope."
I don't have any sympathy for the morons that are still hanging around him now. None. This has been going on for too long now for anybody to plead ignorance. Megan knew, or should have known, what a dumpster fire he and his show have become. She got yet another reminder last night.
To be clear: I don't even really advocate for any of these people to actively "disavow" Nick. That's a personal decision on their part. Even if they don't say anything, in time, people will either forget they were ever associated with Nick, or presume they no longer are (again, see Sean and Andrew).
This woman may not say it, but she pities him. If they were friends before he transformed into a balldo, she is probably wondering what this doppelganger did to her friend.
If I had to place a bet, it'd be on Nick being asshurt about the "former lawyer" accusations and using the speeding ticket as an opportunity to prove the haters wrong and he is in fact fully capable of lawyering and just chooses not to do it because reasons. But please, don't look too closely at what he exactly did do in court though.
To be clear: I don't even really advocate for any of these people to actively "disavow" Nick. That's a personal decision on their part. Even if they don't say anything, in time, people will either forget they were ever associated with Nick, or presume they no longer are (again, see Sean and Andrew).
I agree with your take, except of this bit above - i used to think like that even just couple weeks ago, but my opinion is changing now.
Yes they should disavow him. Now is the time. Now, that they know what movies he likes, what makes him happy, how he treats decent people, how he fraternizes with revolting people, how he disrespects God, people who love God, his own wife, his own kids, his own community, or even the animals.
What are they waiting for? What sort of joke or comment is gonna make them go "okay that's it"? There is a pattern. There is a clear path that he is traveling on, the direction of which is visible to anyone. Plus, there is a bit of urgency in that he's destroying his body rapidly. Disavowing him only when he's dead will be extremely distasteful and pointless.
Now is the time. It's no longer acceptable that Jersh is carrying that cross alone. There were dozens, or maybe even hundreds of people hosting or being guests with Nick - disavowers' strength is in numbers.
Here's my autistic/creative idea for a video - a Shark Tank, but with all those people making a one line comment to justify why they cut the ties:
- he said he hates Christmas, and for that reason - I'm out
- he asked me if I want to attend an underwear party in a gay bar, and for that reason - I'm out
- he seems obsessed with American Beauty, and for that reason - I'm out
etc. etc. etc.
They wouldn't have to grovel, apologize for 'not seeing the signs', explain the reasoning in long paragraphs, expose themselves to further criticism, be emotional about it or anything. Just one line (it could be funny, silly or serious - doesn't matter), supported by a quick clip from Rekietas' stream or his tweet as evidence - and that's it, never come back to the subject again. 80 one-line comments from 80 different people is far more powerful than 5 of them explaining the issue in detail. If people would be sending them superchats or asking about it on other streams afterwards, they could just say - 'I have already stated in this video that I am done with Nick, so let's move on'.
Additionally, it would protect them from feeling pressured into involving themselves in quarrels with Nick, if he would start yapping back: 'wow it's so unfair they clipped it all out of context' - yeah, that won't work if there are dozens of clips and dozens of streamers saying they disavow. They could just ignore him, their combined strength would serve as the best defense.
That would save the time that will be otherwise inevitably wasted on drama and pointless explanations in the future. Just say it now and be done with it. Don't try to climb into a dumpster on fire, don't pretend you're a firefighter, don't ignore that it's burning - just state "there is a fire, so I am fucking off from here' - and leave.
This woman may not say it, but she pities him. If they were friends before he transformed into a balldo, she is probably wondering what this doppelganger did to her friend.
None of them are "friends". None of them have ever been "friends". It's all opportunistic leeching and if any of them believe they are actually "friends" they are retarded and deserve what happens next.
It wasn’t a mythological construct.
The golden age of journalism was a time when journalists had near total control over public opinion and any and all lies and slants would be 100% believes. This was between the 1870’s and the 1950’s.
I agree with everything else you said, but sadly YouTubers and streamers and Twitter have kept that spirit of hypocrisy and misinformation alive
