🐷 Ethan Oliver Ralph / TheRalphRetort / Rad Roberts / Jcaesar187 / Rage Pig / "Killstream" / "Tequila Sunrise" - 5'1'' fat alcoholic, owner of a gunt, convicted felon and revenge pornographer, property of the ugly failed tranny pornstar Lucas Roberts. Has quadruple titties.

[Diabeetus]

WHAT

TELL ME THIS IS ONLY ME

View attachment 583126

Justin Y. is on the case!

 

[vhstape]

All I want to see is the WSJ donate $27k to ST. Jude, I mean that is what they would do if they care about the charity but they don't and won't.

 

[Diabeetus]

All I want to see is the WSJ donate $27k to ST. Jude, I mean that is what they would do if they care about the charity but they don't and won't.

They care about shooting down people they don't like, even when they're doing something good.

 

[Sonork]

10 million USD annually versus a single $26000 stream...

It's about ethics in helping kids with cancer. If they accept money from shitposters on the internet then they could potentially lose the big bucks from the multinational corporations who exploit people in the third world as slave labour. It's about ethics!! Think of the PR disaster if they accepted the money!?

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

https://lucien0maverick.wordpress.com/2018/11/03/bad-pr-117-healstreamst-judes-money-politics/
http://archive.is/odpJC

Bad PR 117: Healstream, The Wall Street Journal, and St. Jude’s Money Politics
Posted on November 3, 2018

I don’t know how many of you will remember this, but a long time ago there was a drive that PornHub was doing. They were taking views from a certain amount of videos in their Big Tit and Small Tit categories and were donating money to a breast cancer charity. The one they picked was Komen for the Cure. However, as they discovered, their charity of choice didn’t want their money. Why? Because it was smut money. And as we all know, smug money doesn’t go as far as REAL money in helping find a cure for breast cancer. That’s just common knowledge!

Well, it seems that St Jude’s Children Research Hospital is looking to add their name to the list of morally bankrupt charities that care more about their image than they do about helping the cause that they are ostensibly supposed to be helping. You know, because of the name.

The story broke that The Ralph Retort, a personality that I have never had any love for, was doing a stream as a charity drive. The charity of choice was St Jude’s. Ralph has a reputation as a horrible alt-right Nazi supporting evil person simply because he hosts alt-right debates on his channel as part of what Mister Metokur called “Internet Bloodsports.” However, Ralph decided that instead of doing his usual Killstream, he would do the “Healstream,” where he would raise money to help St Jude’s. But as is want to be in these instances, things got complicated.

A reporter from The Wall Street Journal wanted to do an article on it. Not from a fair-minded position, of course. As was found out when the article dropped. It was a hit-piece. Talking about EVIL alt-righters trying to make money for a good cause. A lot of things happened when that article dropped, and the timing is WAY too suspicious to not look at it and think – hm, that’s interesting.

One of the things that happened is St Jude’s sent the money back. You know, the money that was supposed to help research for children. Money that could have helped find a cure for cancer in children. That money. They sent it right back to The Ralph Retort. The timing of this is too convenient to not notice, and it becomes incredibly clear why they sent the money back – because they don’t see alt-right money as equal to other people’s money. And here’s where I am pissed off.

Do we live in a world now where charities that are ostensibly supposed to be able helping people now have a fucking political agenda? Is that the world we live in? I ask because if so – fuck St Jude’s. No joke, fuck them. This is disgusting. This is morally reprehensible. You are making your organization have politics attached to whose money you take! Do you not see how disgusting that is? Is it just eluding you?

I contend that if you are a charity, you lose the right to make such judgment calls. For real, I do. Because if the goal of your organization is to help children with cancer find a cure for said cancer, then you have no fucking right to say “nah, we don’t want your money. It’s attached to politics we don’t like.” If that’s the case, then you need to update the name of your charity. The St Jude’s Socially Acceptable Children Research Hospital. Wouldn’t want anyone to get confused, after all. They might start thinking that you care about kids or something. But nope. You care that you can virtue signal that you didn’t take alt-right money. That’s all that matters to you. You fucking reprehensible pieces of shit. You spineless, gutless, pusillanimous, yellow-bellied, cowardly toads!

Any organization that wants to help people should lose the right to discriminate on who they take money from. After all, as evil as the bitch was, Mother Teresa sure didn’t. She took money from leaders who were engaged in genocide of their own people. A modern saint took evil money! So why can’t you take money from someone who you view as politically opposed to yourself?!

But Lucien, this could affect their image!

It’s affecting their image now! Now we can see them for what they are! And are you telling me that it’s better to have an organization care more about how they are perceived than about the cause they are supposed to represent?! Am I reading that right? Is that the take-away from this?

More and more, we are seeing things like this. There was Komen for the Cure, the charity who rejected the GamerGate money, and now St Jude’s. I’m sure that the children who are lying sick and dying from cancer are going to be so glad that this charity who is supposed to help didn’t take the money of those EVIL alt-righters. I’m sure they are just so happy. Amoral, self-minded scumbags.

Let me put their charity another way – St Jude’s Kills Children.

Until next time, a quote,

“I mean, are you really gonna turn down my money on the basis of this ideological disagreement? Apparently the answer is yes.” – TJ Kirk, Save the Boobs (From the Boobs)

Peace out,

Maverick

 

[Otis Boi]

Anyone that would have approached St Jude with a copy of that stream, be it a reporter, a private organization, a private citizen, etc...St Jude would have responded the same.

You would have to be extremely spiteful individual to think about doing something like that. It's not like the money is being sent to them with a note attached saying "Only help pure white children not for Blacks or jews." or a giant check to them. They could have just kept quite and shrugged their shoulders. You think a charity like this would be apolitical

 

[Kirito]

You would have to be extremely spiteful individual to think about doing something like that. It's not like the money is being sent to them with a note attached saying "Only help pure white children not for Blacks or jews." or a giant check to them. They could have just kept quite and shrugged their shoulders. You think a charity like this would be apolitical

I wouldn't put it above the wallskeet journal to do a hitpiece on St. Judes if they kept the money

 

[Sheryl Nome]

You would have to be extremely spiteful individual to think about doing something like that. It's not like the money is being sent to them with a note attached saying "Only help pure white children not for Blacks or jews." or a giant check to them. They could have just kept quite and shrugged their shoulders. You think a charity like this would be apolitical

wsj put a gun to their head, "St Judes - funded by Nazis." I can see the title now.

 

[Rip_In_Pepperino]

so there's no coincidence that WSJ is an anagram of SJW

 

[Marvin]

What if you promote it?

Even if you promote it.

A good rule of thumb is that whoever has copyright on the piece is responsible for it.

It all depends on how secured their hosting and stuff is and how willing they are to move their servers to some shithole country.

Go bare metal. It requires some investment, but you'll be able to host in the US. Shithole countries can be susceptible to more unpredictable attacks.

I think that's only for the front-end.

Yeah, the content itself is served from traditional servers. The thing it's talking about is a cryptocurrency for tipping, so they're pretty solidly insulated against financial censorship, albeit at a higher entry barrier for normies.

If you read about nginx and rtmp streaming it said it was 'surprisingly low CPU usage'. That's because nginx is written in C++ AS GOD INTENDED and all you're doing is shoving the same H.264 compressed bytes into 20K sockets and that is not CPU intensive. Web servers are also very scalable across machines with lots of threads like dual core servers. And you can always split the 20K over a few physical servers with load balancing.

Now I don't know what 'not CPU intensive' means in this context and I'd need to experiment to find out. However I reckon you could just build a server that could do it for a lot less than Ralph made a month. Hell you can pick up second hand blade server very cheap because companies tend to get rid of their hardware once they've written it off for tax purposes. EEVblog regularly finds old servers dumpster diving.

nginx is written in C, not C++. C++ is garbage.

Like you noted, performance is not at all the issue with video streaming. It's basically brainless i/o.

The hard part is bandwidth. @Null went over the numbers in this post.

 

[Secret Asshole]

I honestly can't blame St. Judes. The WSJ obviously put pressure on them and described Ralph in the worst ways possible to try to convince them actual Nazis were behind the money, which would be impossible.

But everyone is afraid of image these days. Nobody is brave enough to stand up and say 'Go fuck yourself you sensationalist cunts'. I guess that's just the times we live in

 

[Particle Bored]

wsj put a gun to their head, "St Judes - funded by Nazis." I can see the title now.

Apparently whites have the highest risk of childhood leukemia vs other ethnicities.

We need the Daily Stormer to get out their article ASAP.

"Heil St. Jude's: Dedicated to Saving the Aryan Race"

 

[Ma_Hooty]

You know, people can have shitty opinions and still be morally just contributors of society, good samaritans, people who quietly help others and expect nothing in return.

Hell, a downright asshole who spits on the homeless may have a weakness for animals and always adds on that extra $5 to help animal shelters that Petsmart asks as he's paying for his dog's food.

I don't understand why they can't understand that people aren't morally black and white - fucking Hitler of all humans had some of the strictest laws at that time in regards to animal rights; the Vatican continues to sit on their hands as priests sexually abuse children, which has been going on for decades.

If St. Jude wasn't pressured and they care more about their image, then I wonder how much money St. Jude got over the years that was secretly bigot money - better return all of it just in case!

 

[Secret Asshole]

TRR have lost! No youtube, no fight, no fun. Just a bunch of boring nobodies with limited vocabulary taking about shit nobody cares about on a platform nobody knows. Mr Ralph wasn't smart enough to stay in the game. The stuttering foolski is soon to follow.

Don't kid yourself. Nobody really cares about the cancer kids. Not the MSM, not the nazi larpers.

Hi Bronx Blogger, you AIDs ridden faggot. Ralph had nearly 6k watching him on a website nobody ever heard of. He melted the site. He's had offers for websites and hosting.

Now people see that YouTube takes their superchats, they are most likely to use streamlabs.

YouTube wants to be TV and Ralph won't be the last. Andy is already prepping to leave already.

You really are fucking stupid

 

[Ruin]

Quick question here. Lets be hypothetical for a moment and say actual literal white supremacists who unironically believe in and advocate for a white ethno state donated 26k to help cancer kids. Who gives a shit if the people who gave the money aren't great people? Isn't helping kids with cancer a noble cause regardless if the people who previously owned the money are sort of shitty?

If we're now applying sins of the father to currency then we practically can't use any money because almost all of it was involved in the drug or weapons trades at some point.

 

[ComeoutandJULAY]

 

[DunrikNurd]

Hi Bronx Blogger, you AIDs ridden faggot. Ralph had nearly 6k watching him on a website nobody ever heard of. He melted the site. He's had offers for websites and hosting.

Now people see that YouTube takes their superchats, they are most likely to use streamlabs.

YouTube wants to be TV and Ralph won't be the last. Andy is already prepping to leave already.

You really are fucking stupid

I hope I'm proven wrong.

Sure the hardcore followers will stick around a few weeks, the rest of us will just watch the clipshows on youtube, but it wont be the same. Some of the fascination for me is the guys streaming from the enemy camp, if they end up in some safe harbour, some of the edge is taken off imo.

I still think you have to much faith in the fans, but time will show.

Btw. I can accept you calling me stupid, but calling me Bronx Blogger... that hurt. Apologize!

 

[JustStopDude]

But everyone is afraid of image these days.

This has always been the case. None of this situation is "new" except that news cycle is much quicker. Sensationalist journalism is older than the US constitution.

 

[Spooky]

So I went to Dlive to grab their logo to make a meme and I see this on the homepage

View attachment 583235

At least it is a good episode.

TRR have lost! No youtube, no fight, no fun. Just a bunch of boring nobodies with limited vocabulary taking about shit nobody cares about on a platform nobody knows. Mr Ralph wasn't smart enough to stay in the game. The stuttering foolski is soon to follow.

Don't kid yourself. Nobody really cares about the cancer kids. Not the MSM, not the nazi larpers.

Whoever asks that question better make sure that they never have shopped at kmart or H&M or own Apple products or a pair of Nikes...

You suck at consensus cracking kraut or krautfriend. Why are you guys always so bad at that? Anyway, you don't have to follow someone else's morality to point them out on hypocrisy. The questioner would presumably want them to take money from all sources.

I have briefly read the article by WSJ, is it me, or does it seem like the woman manufactured the story. We talked to St Jude's... Then we write about how they will refund/refuse money.

Seems like a small scale Eichenwald. Getting involved in a story so that there is more to write about. I would not be surprised if she does a follow up about how the channel was shut down.

This is how activism journalism has worked for a long time.

Ring Ring* "Hello I would like to ask you your opinion on this neonazi you are paying/hosting/is working for you and intent to write a piece on them." "Oh what evidence do I have? I wouldn't be calling if I wasn't sure. I write for the xxxx." "Oh you had no idea and intend to fire them you say well good." Click*

Journalist now has a story they can write with backup from the surrounding circumstances they created confirming the story and adding color. The life of their opponent is ruined, which was the goal in the first place. Journalists are scum

 

[Miller]

I have briefly read the article by WSJ, is it me, or does it seem like the woman manufactured the story. We talked to St Jude's... Then we write about how they will refund/refuse money.

Seems like a small scale Eichenwald. Getting involved in a story so that there is more to write about. I would not be surprised if she does a follow up about how the channel was shut down.

Like @Spooky said, it's activism not journalism. Joe Bernstein did the same thing to Sam Hyde.