The issue with that argument is that the fact that you're using a specific character means that there's more characteristics to talk from. If he wanted to call her ugly, it'd be far more likely that he'd just call her ugly, or that he'd vary the epithets such that the characters referenced/descriptors used would have this common string of "ugly". It'd be more likely that he'd call her an ogre instead of a specific ogre that's actually a sympathetic character with a developed character arc in a much better movie.
There's nothing that you actually have from him that well-suggests anything outside of what he claimed, especially since (IIRC) he doesn't even discuss her appearance along with calling her Shrek.
I like how you included the Pepe Silvia meme as you try to explain how calling someone "Shrek" isn't a personal attack on their appearance when it is. In all that, you haven't said what he really could have meant by calling her Shrek. Nothing will change the fact that Shrek is known for being ugly and when you call someone Shrek, the immediate reaction is you're calling them ugly. By your logic, I'm sure people don't mind being called Sloth, Quasimodo, and Rocky Dennis because they were all sympathetic.
MauLer claimed he called her Shrek because "she was out of place and in the way throughout the plot, like Shrek would be if he popped up". But out of all the characters who would be out of place and in the way, it's odd that he chose someone who's ugly. Why not call her Jackie Chan?
And yet I was still far less wrong than you. You didn't just claim that everyone got a nickname-- you claimed that everyone getting a nickname was a gimmick of the video. Only two people had a nickname, and it wasn't at all a gimmick of the video.
But you're still far more wrong when it came to MauLer's intent. It wasn't because he couldn't be bothered to care about her character's name. It was because he wanted to make fun of how she looked, while calling the kettle black.
"Going after" is a very dramatic way to say "criticize", and the only place his sycophants are being sent out by him to attack others is-- as far as you can demonstrate-- in your head and on your convoluted investigation board.
It's also more accurate when MauLer continues to openly attack them at any chance he gets. It's one thing to make one or two videos calling out some idiot, it's another to attack said idiot whenever you can, even in videos supposed to be film critiques. The only place his NPCs are being sent out by him to attack others are on the videos of said others, the Twitters of said others, and said others' livestreams.
...because it's a charlie foxtrot of a situation. It's a section because it's a thing that happened and it's relevant to the subject of the thread. But it's one of many sections.
It's also a section that relates directly to MauLer, was instigated by MauLer, and puts MauLer's fat fingerprints all over this thread. The section would not exist without MauLer, like this thread. And it may be just one, but the OP's "Oh boi" establishes that it holds very special importance to him.
...do you call everyone at least two days younger than you a "baby"? Because you seem to insist on robbing people of their agency as you claim that the only reason that there was an emphasis on her being a Disney Star Wars fan had to be because OP was also a MauLer sycophant. Literally nothing else. Can't even be that he agrees with MauLer independent of MauLer. It's not that OP is independently invested in Star Wars and hates the films. And what does it matter that she hates the side films-- do you have to be a fan of every segment of a franchise in order to be a fan of the franchise?
MauLer NPCs have no agency. They believe anything he tells them and feel how he wants them to feel. Refer to the OP claiming Jenny was strawmanning others in her TLJ video, the exact same thing MauLer claimed - despite also making the exact same point Jenny made about how Luke would never try to kill his nephew. Also, the point about Jenny hating Disney Star Wars films (TRoS ain't a side film) is it goes against the "Disney shill" accusation because it's pretty unusual for a shill to openly criticize what they're supposed to be promoting. Nice strawman brah!
Again, you insist on his white knights being extensions of him instead of people that operate independently of him for their own interests (the defense of something/someone they like/appreciate as a means to snuff out cognitive dissonance brought about by observed contradicting opinion).
So why don't they start defending something/someone they like/appreciate as a means to snuff out cognitive dissonance brought about by observed contradicting opinion until MauLer goes after that contradicting opinion? This contradicting opinion came out in April, but his white knights didn't raid the video until six months later when he responded to it. Not very independent.
I doubt if it would have mattered to you if this thread was created two months after said incident-- you would have still claimed it was evidence of OP being a MauLer fanboy, even though the shape of your argument suggests that it was also the (preceding) Star Wars stuff that led to the creation of this thread.
And responding to specifically that at a point does not break the context of that complete thought. Secondly, if he's not the average streamer... he's not the average streamer.
It does when the point is to demonstrate all the things that make MauLer more autistic than Rags and Wolf. Including him not being the average streamer.
How do you know if he wants them going after these people? Because he wants to respond and showcase said response because he wants to make a general point? Are you going to suggest that he rein in his fanbase as if they're not cognizant enough to rein themselves in, as if they were actual children? You can't demonstrate that he's signaling to go after these people because there's nothing that demonstrates that he wants anybody going after these people except for the fact that he acknowledges them. Somehow, them being nobodies means that he wants them raided when he showcases his responses to them? But if they're not nobodies, it still means that?
You just think he wants them raided because of course you do. I'm not beyond thinking that MauLer may not be morally upright-- I mean, he certainly isn't if he helped your wife sabotage your marriage-- but don't waste people's time with vendetta covers and just get down to business.
Because he's putting these people right on his Twitter. Because instead of hitting respond to normally respond to someone, he makes sure all of his followers see his response and the person he's putting on blast. Because he wanted to make a general point, he could make a general point without specifically identifying anyone. He doesn't want to rein in his fanbase. He knows his fanbase will attack anyone he has beef with, like fanbases do. Rather than avoid this by keeping his conflicts more discreet or not even engaging in them, he lets his fanbase know who he's feuding with so his fanbase will join him in his attacks. It's the nature of a fanbase to defend what they like and MauLer directs his fanbase to whom he needs to be defended against. He does this against nobodies and somebodies. The actual point about the nobodies is that he actively searches out nobodies saying mean things about him and puts them on blast because he's that thin-skinned.
It's a fact he wants them raided because he's letting all of his followers know exactly who they're supposed to attack and where they're supposed to attack. ITT, certain people claim Jenny sent her fans after MauLer because she referenced his video without any direct references to him or his video. But when MauLer directly tells his fans who and what they're going after today, there's suddenly skepticism towards his intent.
The failure of your insistence that open criticism == incitement to raid aside, it's stupid to attempt to rein in control of thousands of autonomous agents with their own interests who likely were never operating according to what they thought your interests were, if they ever thought of that in the first place. It's even more asinine to think that someone should have such a responsibility when they're not actually inciting anything.
Thanks for acknowledging that open criticism is equal to incitement to raid. Like I said, it's the nature of fanbases to defend what they love, which leads to them going anyone giving their idol problems and/or offending their idol. And it's the nature of fanbases to do what their idol asks of them to win favor. When their idol just wants them to attack someone else, they'll do it. While that idol may not be responsible for all of their fanbases dumbassery, they are responsible for not instigating their fanbase to attack other people by not letting their fanbase specifically know who's causing them problems. And MauLer choses to let his entire fanbase know whenever he has a problem with someone else. If he wasn't trying to incite anything, he wouldn't show his fanbase who he wants to have vitriol directed towards.
"She was useless and I don't want to see her anymore because she was useless. The only value she had was comedic. Like, when she told Finn that they're not going to win by fighting what they hate but saving who they love after she T-boned him at high velocity, before the giant laser blasted through the wall and the First Order was about to murder everyone they loved-- I busted a gut."
And you can't demonstrate your hypothesis. Meanwhile, the only thing that is concrete is what he said he meant. I have to make more assumptions to support your hypothesis-- like that he actually considered her ugly-- when he doesn't even speak about her appearance proper.
Yes, if you're an aristocrat fetus, know less than nothing about Shrek and the only thing you were told was that he was an ogre and ogres are ugly by default. This also assumes that he was calling the actor ugly when he was speaking about the character said actor played just about the entire time.
Holy crap, you actually are projecting. Of course MauLer has to believe she's ugly, and call her Shrek specifically because he finds her ugly, because you find her ugly.
Did you notice that every one of the things he responded to that you presented to me were speaking poorly of/speaking to delegitimize EFAP or him specifically?
One of these weren't even about either one of them, but about the fanbase, to which he replies that there are worse fanbases but he'll take it on the chin. How is that an attack on them? Why can't he reasonably elect to respond to these people speaking poorly of him and indirectly legitimize their comments? Because they're "nobodies"? MauLer has responsibility over people he's never met, but people making potshots at him or trying to delegitimize him or his work shouldn't have to expect that MauLer actually sees what they wrote and responds? Is this even a regular thing? The fact that you produced five discrete examples suggests otherwise.
One of them is literally a question posed to him-- why can't he respond to it? Why can't he showcase his response? Where's the ill in that? Where's the incitement in answering a question and attempting to answer its underlying assumptions? Where even is the incendiary material?
...and why did you just post links instead of links and photos?
"Sent out by him", "sent out by him"-- you still haven't produced the evidence of him inciting others to attack others, and you failed to demonstrate that his responses to said people in the first place were unreasonable or unwarranted. Whenever it comes to demonstrating that he actually does it, you just say he does and that's supposed to be that. You're disputing whether or not he does but you assume that he does to begin with.
It's also a section that relates directly to MauLer, was instigated by MauLer, and puts MauLer's fat fingerprints all over this thread. The section would not exist without MauLer, like this thread. And it may be just one, but the OP's "Oh boi" establishes that it holds very special importance to him.
So... a post is mostly non-MauLer, but the mere existence of MauLer (at the almost end, no less) despite his relevance to the subject and the consequent imcompleteness of the post should he be omitted means that this thread wouldn't have existed without MauLer's incident? Even though that middling position would indicate less importance or less desired attention by virtue of the value of the serial ordering effect? It's absolutely possible that OP decided to make this specifically because of the MauLer incident(s), but you have no evidence of it and the only connecting strings are in your head.
So why don't they start defending something/someone they like/appreciate as a means to snuff out cognitive dissonance brought about by observed contradicting opinion until MauLer goes after that contradicting opinion? This contradicting opinion came out in April, but his white knights didn't raid the video until six months later when he responded to it. Not very independent.
That's rich, coming from someone that thinks that MauLer was calling Tran ugly by calling her Shrek because you think she's ugly and not because he actually suggested it in a tangible way.
But they're still distinct thoughts, able to be addressed separately. The only thing that's lost is the intangible effect that you impute onto them as they're grouped together-- and why should I care about that?
ITT, certain people claim Jenny sent her fans after MauLer because she referenced his video without any direct references to him or his video. But when MauLer directly tells his fans who and what they're going after today, there's suddenly skepticism towards his intent.
Like I said, it's the nature of fanbases to defend what they love, which leads to them going anyone giving their idol problems and/or offending their idol.
The only way you can make your points about MauLer is when you don't actually show what MauLer is saying, and you expect others to be convinced by the fact that some of your text is made out of custom hyperlinks.
In addition,
you think that MauLer called Tran ugly by calling her Shrek because you think she's ugly,
you hardly know anything about Shrek,
you think people shouldn't handle how they respond to a public comment on a public platform by publically talking about it just because you arbitrarily define them as "nobodies"-- meanwhile they shouldn't have to have their public responses publicly showcased because autonomous, mostly adult fans (that you consider non-autonomous despite incontrovertibly being so) respond to them en masse for their own reasons while MauLer doesn't say that they should...
...but he does, because he gives these people the light of day with their public comments in a public platform, the only way that you think that such isn't happening is if they find out about something that they wouldn't have known about without him bringing attention to it,
the best justification for your claim that this thread was created by a MauLer fanboy prompted by the latest MauLer/Nicholson incident is solely because its creation proceeded a MauLer/Nicholson incident, and
you can't demonstrate why the length of time would matter,
you think doing the same thing you figure others are doing (insisting Nicholson sicced her fans after MauLer/EFAP) is sensible,
you can't read,
MauLer had sex with your wife, and
you gummed up another thread with your poorly veiled vendetta because
i get it. he's malding, fat, cringe as shit, and pals around with degenerate furries. probably deserves a thread of his own, whatever.
more importantly- this got posted. what the fuck is this. look at this man. absorb the Big Simp Energy. can't imagine the horror nicholson felt watching this, if she's ever happened across it.
I watched too much Jenny Nicholson and accidentally made a video exactly in the way she makes videos oops. If you dont understand who Im making fun of in thi...
And you can't demonstrate your hypothesis. Meanwhile, the only thing that is concrete is what he said he meant. I have to make more assumptions to support your hypothesis-- like that he actually considered her ugly-- when he doesn't even speak about her appearance proper.
You demonstrate it by failing to offer any viable alternatives. Calling someone ugly character = calling them ugly. Simple. All you can do is Charlie Kelly around this and play the literal card. I see you have no response to the point that there were countless other out-of-place characters MauLer could have used instead, but chose to pick one known for being ugly. If I call someone Jabba the Hutt without speaking about their appearance proper, does that mean I'm not calling them fat?
Yes, if you're an aristocrat fetus and know less than nothing about Shrek and the only thing you were told was that he was an ogre and ogres are ugly by default. This also assumes that he was calling the actor ugly when he was speaking about the character said actor played just about the entire time.
And if you're a normal person, you know Shrek is ugly. Not sure why there's an emphasis on contrasting the actor and the character now, but it's probably to conceal how you still can't argue what else MauLer could have meant because even you know he was calling her ugly.
Holy crap, you actually are projecting. Of course MauLer has to believe she's ugly, and call her Shrek specifically because he finds her ugly, because you find her ugly.
It's one thing to move the goalpost, it's another thing to move the goalpost after moving the goalpost. And then you ask who cares after caring enough to defend MauLer over this while also not saying what the "point"
Did you notice that every one of the things he responded to that you presented to me were speaking poorly of/speaking to delegitimize EFAP or him specifically?
Did you know that's not relevant to the original point about him going after internet nobodies? He shouldn't care about nobodies saying mean things about him and EFAP because nobody else is listening to those nobodies. But he shows he cares and searches them out because he's a special autistic snowflake.
One of these weren't even about either one of them, but about the fanbase, to which he replies that there are worse fanbases but he'll take it on the chin. How is that an attack on them? Why can't he reasonably elect to respond to these people speaking poorly of him and indirectly legitimize their comments? Because they're "nobodies"? MauLer has responsibility over people he's never met, but people making potshots at him or trying to delegitimize him or his work shouldn't have to expect that MauLer actually sees what they wrote and responds? Is this even a regular thing? The fact that you produced five discrete examples suggests otherwise.
When you grow in popularity, you're always going to have detractors. You need to develop a thick skin and roll with the punches because not only will you never be able to respond to all them, you look really insecure when you get ruffled by the slightest shred of criticism. Nobody who matters is listening to those people speaking poorly of him and cares about legitimizing their irrelevant comments. His fanbase isn't going to stop watching him because some rando said a mean thing. By brushing it off, MauLer demonstrates that these nobodies' complaints (whose status as nobodies isn't changed by quotation marks) don't bother him and his fanbase knows they're not legitimate. By instead responding, MauLer comes off as thin-skinned and insecure by bothering with people nobody else even cares for. He demonstrates that anyone can ruffle his feathers and that begs the question why he's getting so triggered in the first place. And he wastes time seeing and responding to the nobodies when he could be making the videos he promised to his patrons instead. No, those people shouldn't expect a response from MauLer because he should have more important things to do.
I like how after questioning what's wrong with MauLer getting triggered by internet nobodies, you then question if this is a regular thing. If it's okay for him to punch down, why does it matter if it's a regular thing? Those were the more blatant cases, but the fact that there are actual examples of him punching down demonstrates that he has and will punch down.
One of them is literally a question posed to him-- why can't he respond to it? Why can't he showcase his response? Where's the ill in that? Where's the incitement in answering a question and attempting to answer its underlying assumptions? Where even is the incendiary material?
That question literally posed to him is from a guy with literally six followers. That guy has no influence on anyone, let alone MauLer's fanbase. Someone that irrelevant shouldn't be worth a response; what he said isn't making MauLer lose any fans. And if MauLer can't resist the urge to respond, there's no need to showcase his response. He can answer the question without showing all of his fans his answer. The ill is MauLer is punching down because he's a very special snowflake. The incitement is in his desire to showcase his answer, which he has no legitimate reason to do, because he wants his followers to also go after this rando. The incendiary material is he's openly criticizing some dude with a mere 6 followers and wants his fanbase to pile on.
"Sent out by him", "sent out by him"-- you still haven't produced the evidence of him inciting others to attack others, and you failed to demonstrate that his responses to said people in the first place were unreasonable or unwarranted. Whenever it comes to demonstrating that he actually does it, you just say he does and that's supposed to be that. You're disputing whether or not he does but you assume that he does to begin with.
I did produce it, you removed it in your reply. A guy with 15.3K subscribers and under 5,000 followers makes a negative video about MauLer. MauLer retweets him, prompting the MauLer NPCs to attack him and his video. MauLer does an EFAP on a Quinton video that's about a year old. Immediately following the stream, Quinton's video gets flooded by MauLer NPCs. MauLer NPCs raided HelloGreedo's stream because MauLer despises him for daring to think TLJ is good. And then we have this thread, which exists because MauLer has been adamant about having his NPCs hate Jenny. His responses to the nobodies were unreasonable and unwarranted because irrelevant people shouldn't be bothering him when they have no effect on his fanbase. His responses to the likes of HelloGreedo and Jenny are unreasonable and unwarranted because they're instigated by differing viewpoints upsetting him. And he and his NPCs don't want to acknowledge that he caused this backlash by going after Jenny in the first place. If you don't want to be attacked, don't attack others. But really, the fact that he puts all his detractors and those with opposing views on his Twitter in first place demonstrates it's an undisputable fact that he sends his NPCs to attack others.
So... a post is mostly non-MauLer, but the mere existence of MauLer (at the almost end, no less) despite his relevance to the subject and the consequent imcompleteness of the post should he be omitted means that this thread wouldn't have existed without MauLer's incident? Even though that middling position would indicate less importance or less desired attention by virtue of the value of the serial ordering effect? It's absolutely possible that OP decided to make this specifically because of the MauLer incident(s), but you have no evidence of it and the only connecting strings are in your head.
Claiming that the post is "mostly non-MauLer" is debatable because the section he's in is the longest section. Pity that it being almost at the end means nothing, but the fact that the OP spent more time on his Joker drama than anything else shows that it held special importance to him. Way to also contradict your "at the almost end" comment by claiming it's in a "middling position" that supposedly indicates less importance or less desired attention by virtue of the value of the serial ordering effect (news flash: being near the bottom isn't a "middling position"). What does, however, indicate importance is the amount of time the OP spent on each section and he put most of his effort in that section. Without that section, what does this thread have? This isn't about how it should be omitted, this about how this thread has nothing juicy without it. And even then, it only provides juicy material about MauLer's snowflake tendencies. The evidence is in the OP already establishing himself as a MauLer NPC who made the same nonsensical point MauLer made, this thread being made just weeks after the MauLer incident, and the OP dedicating more effort to the MauLer incident than anything else. You removed all this from your head because you can't handle the truth.
What question? When confronted with the fact that this thread was made shortly after MauLer's drama, all you could do was drop a hypothetical that will never happen. At best, the time that it took for this thread to be produced is a coincidence. But that doesn't change the thread's convenient timing, which you can't even admit is the teeniest implication that this was made by a MauLer NPC trying to get back at Jenny.
That's rich, coming from someone that thinks that MauLer was calling Tran ugly by calling her Shrek because you think she's ugly and not because he actually suggested it in a tangible way.
It's rich that this is coming from someone who was making deflection accusations and is now deflecting to irrelevant points because he can't support his Pepe Silvia theory.
But they're still distinct thoughts, able to be addressed separately. The only thing that's lost is the intangible effect that you impute onto them as they're grouped together-- and why should I care about that?
They're not all distinct thoughts. They're the combined reasons for why MauLer is more autistic than Rags and Wolf. You don't care about that because you'd rather defend MauLer's honor than be correct.
The only way you can make your points about MauLer is when you don't actually show what MauLer is saying, and you expect others to be convinced by the fact that some of your text are custom hyperlinks.
You can see what he's saying just fine by clicking on the custom hyperlinks, unless people are too lazy to do that. Like I said, I'd like to avoid derailing this topic too much with the additional images, even if the main topic is terribly boring. You'll be thrilled to know that I do include images of what MauLer is showing when I make points about him on his thread.
you think people shouldn't handle how they respond to a public comment on a public platform by publically talking about it just because you arbitrarily define them as "nobodies"-- meanwhile they shouldn't have to have their public responses publicly showcased because autonomous, mostly adult fans (that you consider non-autonomous despite incontrovertibly being so) respond to them en masse for their own reasons while MauLer doesn't say that they should... ...but he does, because he gives these people the light of day with their public comments in a public platform, the only way that you think that such isn't happening is if they find out about something that they wouldn't have known about without him bringing attention to it,
You think it's okay for someone with a sizable fanbase to punch down and deal with the most irrelevant of haters who will always exist and don't hold any influence over their fanbase, who would be defined as "nobodies" by any functioning human because of how little importance they have, without realizing how insecure and sensitive that makes them look, and to publicly showcase responses when there's no valid reason for doing so because they could simply respond themselves like a normal person would do, which prompts fans whose actions have shown them to be non-autonomous, not mentally adults in evidence you ignore, to all respond to them because MauLer's giving them an open invitation to attack them... and the fact that MauLer shouldn't be giving these nobodies the light of day in the first place remains lost on you; it appears you agree that MauLer does want them to respond when again, he shouldn't be bringing any attention to it because while the comments are public and in a public forum, nobody important was paying attention to them before, which is why they go unnoticed until MauLer gets triggered and retweets them.
the best justification for your claim that this thread was created by a MauLer fanboy prompted by the latest MauLer/Nicholson incident is solely because its creation proceeded a MauLer/Nicholson incident, and you can't demonstrate why the length of time would matter,
The best refutation to the fact that this thread was created by a MauLer NPC prompted by MauLer being triggered over the drama he incited with Jenny is solely your hypothetical scenario that will never happen in the real world and you can't even realize that's at least a coincidence, which is why the length of time matters.
you know you can just not post, right? let people circle, it's whatever. the thread either dies or actual evidence of lolcow shit is presented.
this is coming from someone who also doesn't care for mauler - seeing two people get in MOTI slapfight over a whiny psuedo-podcaster is annoying. i don't care if it's tangentially related. can't you dickslap one another via DMs or something?
Well this thread turned into a mini dumpster fire.
Actual subject at hand here I don't see Jenny as a cow. I'm not going to thirst post or say she's great at what she does but true cows do things for us to milk. She's fairly guarded on her personal life so not much there
I will say I slightly understand the stalking fear bit as I found out about her channel due to 8chan having a /Jen/ ( maybe Jenny ?) Board having a lot of creepy posts on it. I think anyone beyond someone that could afford personal security would be a bit paranoid
you know you can just not post, right? let people circle, it's whatever. the thread either dies or actual evidence of lolcow shit is presented.
this is coming from someone who also doesn't care for mauler - seeing two people get in MOTI slapfight over a whiny psuedo-podcaster is annoying. i don't care if it's tangentially related. can't you dickslap one another via DMs or something?
Secret Sponsorships? Is that what this is about? I think her taste is just shit. She's a dorky white girl, the exact audience Disney Star Wars Kathleen was jerking off to violently while taking a shit on the balding middle aged dorks that used to be into it. More to fuel for the dumpster fire that is Disney Star Wars.
Secret Sponsorships? Is that what this is about? I think her taste is just shit. She's a dorky white girl, the exact audience Disney Star Wars Kathleen was jerking off to violently while taking a shit on the balding middle aged dorks that used to be into it. More to fuel for the dumpster fire that is Disney Star Wars.
Secret Sponsorships? Is that what this is about? I think her taste is just shit. She's a dorky white girl, the exact audience Disney Star Wars Kathleen was jerking off to violently while taking a shit on the balding middle aged dorks that used to be into it. More to fuel for the dumpster fire that is Disney Star Wars.
The general curiosity stems from the fact that she is (or was) a specialty park employee at Disney Land and her youtube channel is more or less a Disney fluff channel. Those aren't necessarily related, but she keeps her work for Disney pretty tightly under wraps to her viewers and you wouldn't know it unless you did research on her.
That's where Bob Iger fucked up. Should've just gone all in with the SJW's and had Kyro and Rey make out while taking a shit on Han Solos grave for 2 hours. The Reylos would orgasm over it, and the balding middle aged tards would come crawling back like a beaten housewife when the new baby boba fett action figure comes out.
The general curiosity stems from the fact that she is (or was) a specialty park employee at Disney Land and her youtube channel is more or less a Disney fluff channel. Those aren't necessarily related, but she keeps her work for Disney pretty tightly under wraps to her viewers and you wouldn't know it unless you did research on her.
I wouldn't blame her. I lived not to far from Anaheim, and If you know anything about Anaheim, California, everyone there is bought and paid for by the mouse. The park security in fact is pseudo law enforcement with tight connections to Anaheim PD. For all the bullshit they've done like buy out stores and knocking them down to expand their parks, and sending their homeless to other cities, working for the mouse is a good gig.
I was surprised to see Jenny has a 10+ page thread on KF, considering she's not really cow material. Never in my life did I expect to stumble upon such an autistic dumpsterfire. what the fuck is this?
The general curiosity stems from the fact that she is (or was) a specialty park employee at Disney Land and her youtube channel is more or less a Disney fluff channel. Those aren't necessarily related, but she keeps her work for Disney pretty tightly under wraps to her viewers and you wouldn't know it unless you did research on her.
I was surprised to see Jenny has a 10+ page thread on KF, considering she's not really cow material. Never in my life did I expect to stumble upon such an autistic dumpsterfire. what the fuck is this?
The OP is really good, however every time someone defends her we keep coming back to the same stuff. The persona of the giggly teenage girl she's developed, that she's making money through undeclared sponsorship (which she's condemned other YouTubers for). That she's in the same social circle as a half dozen other lolcows with their own threads.
The real problem is that there's a shortage of material to work with, which is why the thread is going around in circles.
