In regards to people asking him to do things, I'd say the only way to persuade DSP is by showing him how the change will greatly benefit him, and hope that he's not indolent enough to actually do it. He could also go full contrarian and shut down any common sense suggestions, like stopping the bottle crunches.
A good example of this is his Minecraft goals, where you could name something useless if you paid for it. It requires almost no effort, and prompts his fans to donate more for the "interactive chill" streams.
However a green screen, an actual improvement to his content and long term benefit, will be avoided at all costs. The logistics of it are too complex and demanding for him even when he actually has one already (too big, but cannot figure out how to solve the problem).
On top of this laziness and egocentrism, you have to add the need to feel that he's in control. Like someone else has said, he needs to show who's the "boss" from time to time, like when he dismisses his chat's votes on something, because that's the only power he has over.
That, and maybe Pay2Win mobile games.
I also posted this on Twitter so it might look artificially shortened, which it is. I regularly watch videos about narcissism because with Phil in mind it's an extremely interesting topic. In addition to that I will assume he could be worse with even worse parenting, however he could also hide even more dead corpses behind the scenes and be silent about even more fucked up stories.
But the Wolverine story should be the one breaking the camel's back, as he was so stunningly well-behaved (not like those other stupid kids) but still hasn't got the toy when he just asked this one time for something. In a child's mind this makes absolutely no sense, and maybe he's right. Maybe he wasn't as spoiled as many assume, but theoretically he should've been when his parents had all the money (so they did it right in this regard?). We really can't know. But they clearly did something wrong and not very correct.
Anyway, my writing:
Watching videos about narcissism again, this time a case study of a childhood with rough resemblance to what DSP told us about his. The relevant stories are:
When DSP told us his mom went to the toy store and he could look at the toys all day, choose one and play with it. Then give it back, while she's shopping. WTF.
DSP got a really expensive He-Man playground, built up in the attic. But he could only play with it when his father had to supervise him, or else he might hurt himself due to [stupid probably made up circumstance]. WTF.
He told us he normally doesn't asked for toys. I assume he got conditioned to shut up. So when he asked this one time and they still hadn't bought the Wolverine Toy, of course it left another scar with hidden anger issues. I think this story has a deeper meaning.
Also WTF
He's almost 40 and still calls his parents weekly to give them an update of his life. At least it sounds like so, sorta WTF. I wouldn't be surprised if his parents manipulated him to his marriage, waving with cash. Have they told him they're close to death so he'll obey?
Anyway, upbringing has a lot to do with narcissism. And Phil clearly is a narc. The case study I've listened to was way more cruel than DSP's stories, but who knows what he's not telling. But I can imagine his fucked up parenting, leading to his narcissistic defense mechanics
Of course his childhood doesn't except him from criticizm he's still a grown man and has to face reality now, which is one of the biggest fears of a narc. Current Phil is a big whiny scared wounded child. This is sad. However please don't reward him for that. He's an a$$hole.
Phil is definitely a spoiled little shit. Is that from his upbringing? Obviously I don't trust a lot of what he says, but his conduct today supports some things, like the fact that he's still pissed about a toy he wanted for clout (something he has chased for as long as anyone knows).
I don't know about you, but I don't see people wounded by the toy they didn't get when it would've been nearly the only toy they ever got. That happens to the kids who didn't hear "No" very often. ESPECIALLY when they want it for flexing purposes. That part is very important.
Phil has talked before about collecting (which he did for clout and money because he intended to flip it all one day), but it just so happens that the timing means he didn't have a job, so guess who bought all that shit?
Then you have the way he runs his streams, with his mood is predicated entirely on whether or not retards deposited "enough" money directly into his PayPal account (bypassing Twitch entirely), which is on top of all the other extra money, which is in turn on top of his checks from Twitch.
Phil does not act like those tips are the extras that they are. He acts like it's the only reason he can pay his bills, and he can't even be bothered to at least appear grateful for the support his stream doesn't actually need.
There is no way that he was deprived as a child. When those kids suck, they turn out more like Pat the NES Punk, not DarksydePhil.
Yeah I really would love to have more informations on his childhood, but there is no trustworthy source available. Phil exxagerates and lies constantly and parents who raised a little shit like this can't be trusted either. And our couch-surfing assumptions of how his childhood went could go in any directions. I only assume a snippet of truth when Phil fails to recognize the fuck-uppery he just told.
The stuff that we do know, combined with how he is today, paints a clear enough picture to me. Especially since the more I learn about the asshole, the more obvious it becomes that it was not a single moment that made him, but a constant re-enforcement of a feeling of entitlement. May not have been deliberate, but it happened, over and over again.
That, and his obvious issues telling fantasy from reality, the origin of which I'm not sure as of yet.
My sister is moderately autistic, lets say about a 5 on a scale of 1-10. Shes mentally around 12-14 but understands some more adult concepts and the outside world. So for starters, my sister fits into society better than Phil.
Whenever she sees a 'love scene' in a movie, she holds up her hand in front of her eyes and looks away, sometimes with a smirk. She doesnt understand love scenes or at least finds them uncomfortable. She also will overreact or 'clown mode' at times in some movies at funny parts. Even gives some commentary (inspired by marx brothers, looney tunes and other slapstick).
This behaviour isnt unique to her. I've observed similar behaviour in 99% of autistic children that I have come across (and i have done volunteer work with special needs children). So whats the point of this? Well...
Jenna has claimed Kat is autistic/assburgers. This isnt the Kat thread, but I want to build from there. Kat is probably a 3 on the autism scale. She has the same uncomfortable movements and habits as my sister and anyone with experience around special needs kids would see similar behaviour. So good chance this is right.
Phil is at least a 2, maybe a 3. He has shown many autistic traits in the past (cbf listing them rn but they are numerous) but since Kat has moved in, it has increased in frequency and potency. People will change a little to fit those they are around. Since he is locked in a house 6 days a week with her, he is going to pick up more and more traits. The last few months of love story reactions are showing a more visceral reaction every time. Im only using the love scene point in this post but i could go on further.
Tl;dr Kats autism is almost certainly bringing Phils autism out, whether he realises or not.
I can add to this with more details/evidence if people think its worth unpacking further.
My sister is moderately autistic, lets say about a 5 on a scale of 1-10. Shes mentally around 12-14 but understands some more adult concepts and the outside world. So for starters, my sister fits into society better than Phil.
Whenever she sees a 'love scene' in a movie, she holds up her hand in front of her eyes and looks away, sometimes with a smirk. She doesnt understand love scenes or at least finds them uncomfortable. She also will overreact or 'clown mode' at times in some movies at funny parts. Even gives some commentary (inspired by marx brothers, looney tunes and other slapstick).
This behaviour isnt unique to her. I've observed similar behaviour in 99% of autistic children that I have come across (and i have done volunteer work with special needs children). So whats the point of this? Well...
Jenna has claimed Kat is autistic/assburgers. This isnt the Kat thread, but I want to build from there. Kat is probably a 3 on the autism scale. She has the same uncomfortable movements and habits as my sister and anyone with experience around special needs kids would see similar behaviour. So good chance this is right.
Phil is at least a 2, maybe a 3. He has shown many autistic traits in the past (cbf listing them rn but they are numerous) but since Kat has moved in, it has increased in frequency and potency. People will change a little to fit those they are around. Since he is locked in a house 6 days a week with her, he is going to pick up more and more traits. The last few months of love story reactions are showing a more visceral reaction every time. Im only using the love scene point in this post but i could go on further.
Tl;dr Kats autism is almost certainly bringing Phils autism out, whether he realises or not.
I can add to this with more details/evidence if people think its worth unpacking further.
That's interesting. I had kind of been rattling around in the back of my head for like a week the idea that Phil was mirroring Kathy somehow and that's where this new behavior came from.
Legit autistic people basically enhance each other's autism? Huh...
That could every well explain it, then, and could also explain why being made fun of for his puritan act is having no effect on Phil, which is very unusual.
Just stumbled upon this pop-sci article, I did also download the scientific article mentioned in this pop-sci retelling of it, but since I'm a newfag I'm not gonna risk posting it knowing just how autistic those faggots at scientific journals are about muh copyright, I'm just going to sit here like a child with my arms crossed until someone who isn't a newfag tips me and tells me whether it's fine or not, then I'll edit this post and attach the scientific article itself if it's okay.
BUT NOW! ONTO THE ARTICLE! I'll put the entire text into a spoiler, afterwards I'll post explanations for some concepts that weren't found in the pop-sci article but are explained in the actual scientific article. The link to the article is here along with the archive
A new personality construct has been defined that describes people who persistently see themselves as victims within interpersonal conflicts. The research was published in Personality and Individual Differences.
Study authors Rahav Gabay and team describe how the social world is satiated with interpersonal transgressions that are often unpleasant and seemingly unwarranted, such as being interrupted when speaking. While some people can easily brush off these moments of hurt, others tend to ruminate over them and persistently paint themselves as a victim. The authors present this feeling of being the victim as a novel personality construct that influences how people make sense of the world around them.
The researchers call it the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood (TIV), which they define as “an ongoing feeling that the self is a victim, which is generalized across many kinds of relationships.”
Through a series of eight studies among Israeli adults, Gabay and associates sought to test the validity of the construct of TIV and explore the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional consequences of such a personality trait.
An initial three studies established the TIV as a consistent and stable trait that involves four dimensions: moral elitism, a lack of empathy, the need for recognition, and rumination. A follow-up study further found that this tendency for victimhood is linked to anxious attachment — an attachment style characterized by feeling insecure in one’s relationships — suggesting that the personality trait may be rooted in early relationships with caregivers.
Next, two studies offered insight into the cognitive profile of those with TIV. The studies had participants consider scenarios that involved another person treating them unpleasantly — either by having subjects read a vignette describing a partner giving them poor feedback (Study 3) or by having subjects play a game that ended with their opponent taking a larger share of the winnings (Study 4). Interestingly, the two studies found that those who scored higher on the measure of TIV were more likely to desire revenge against the person who wronged them.
In Study 4, this desire for revenge also translated into behavior — those high in TIV were more likely to remove money from their opponent when given the chance, despite being told that this decision wouldn’t increase their own winnings. Participants high in TIV also reported experiencing more intense negative emotions and a higher entitlement to immoral behavior. Mediation analysis offered insight into how this revenge process unfolds. “The higher participants’ TIV, the more they experienced negative emotions and felt entitled to behave immorally. However, only the experience of negative emotions predicted behavioral revenge,” the authors report.
Gabay and colleagues express that their studies indicate that the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood is a stable personality trait that is linked to particular behavioral, cognitive, and emotional characteristics. “Deeply rooted in the relations with primary caregivers,” the researchers describe, “this tendency affects how individuals feel, think, and behave in what they perceive as hurtful situations throughout their lives.”
The researchers suggest that TIV as a construct offers a framework for understanding how a person’s interpretation of social transgressions can inform feelings of victimhood and lead to revenge behaviors. These insights could inform therapeutic practices for treating such cognitive biases.
The authors suggest that it would be particularly interesting for future studies to explore what happens when people high in TIV are in positions of power. The researchers wonder whether leaders with this persistent tendency to see themselves as a victim might feel more inclined to behave “in a vindictive way.”
The study, “The Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood: The Personality Construct and its Consequences”, was authored by Rahav Gabay, Boaz Hameiri, Tammy Rubel-Lifschitz, and Arie Nadler.
As the pop-sci article explains, there are four dimensions to TIV, or Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood: The need for recognition, Moral elitism, Lack of empathy and Rumination BUT THE ARTICLE NEVER EXPLAINED IT DOOD! *slams controller*
In the scientific article, the need for recognition refers to the person's need to have their victimhood and suffering acknowledged by other people and demand empathy. Doing so entrenches the person's personal vision of reality. Additionally, this dimension also includes forcing the perceived perpetrator to take responsibility and express feelings of guilt for their transgression.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's need for recognition were as follows:
It is important to me that people who hurt me acknowledge that an injustice has been done to me
It is important to me that the person who offended me admits that his or her behavior was wrong
It makes me angry when people don't believe that I was hurt
It is important to me to receive an apology from people who offended me
It is important to me that the person who offended me feels guilty for what he or she did
I feel angry when people ignore my feeling of being hurt
In the scientific article, Moral elitism refers to a perception of a pure morality of self, but a tarnished morality of the other. At the individual level, which we are exploring now, moral elitism may be used to control others by accusing them of immoral, unfair or selfish behavior, while seeing oneself as highly moral and ethical.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's moral elitism were as follows:
I remain considerate of other people even when they don't deserve it
I think I am much more conscientious and moral in my relations with other people compared to their treatment of
me
People often take advantage of my kindness
I give others much more than I receive from them
I feel that other people don't hesitate to take advantage of my weaknesses.
People demand a lot of me without expressing gratitude
In the scientific article, Lack of empathy as you may already imagine, is complete disregard for other people's suffering despite the the person's preoccupation of their own victimhood and suffering, even if they suffered in the same way. Additionally, it includes an increase in the sense of entitlement, aggressiveness and selfishness.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's lack of empathy were as follows:
When people who are close to me feel hurt by my actions, it is very important for me to clarify that justice is on
my side
People who are offended by me are only thinking of themselves
People who claim that I behaved wrongly want me to admit it so they can take advantage of the situation
People claim that I have hurt them because they cannot see that they are the ones hurting me
The main reason that people are offended by me is that they cannot see things from my perspective
It is very important to me that people who were offended by me realize that they are also in the wrong
In the scientific article, Rumination is defined as a focus on the symptoms, causes and consequences of one's distress rather than its solutions. They let those offenses live rent free in their head for so long it causes them distress even long after the offense.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's rumination were as follows:
It is very hard for me to stop thinking about the injustice others have done to me
Days after the offense I am very preoccupied by the injustice done to me
I am flooded by more anger than I would like every time I remember people who hurt me
I am flooded by negative feelings every time I remember people who hurt me
I think the rest of the pop-sci article did a good enough job giving a short description of the rest of the parts of the article. However, I don't want people to misunderstand what "those high in TIV were more likely to remove money from their opponent when given the chance, despite being told that this decision wouldn’t increase their own winnings" means. That one is a game which is part of Game Theory, namely the Dictator Game. So what that means is that people high in TIV who aren't the Dictator in the game would always choose the option where neither of them would get any money, even though an unfair exchange where for example the Dictator chooses to get 75% of the money while the other player gets 25% would still be a net benefit to both, whereas deciding that both would get 0 would be the most negative possible outcome for both.
Now I could be editorializing, gloating and pointing out how many of these read like a psychological evaluation of Dave, but I don't need to, if you've had the patience to read all of this, you can clearly see how it speaks for itself.
Just stumbled upon this pop-sci article, I did also download the scientific article mentioned in this pop-sci retelling of it, but since I'm a newfag I'm not gonna risk posting it knowing just how autistic those faggots at scientific journals are about muh copyright, I'm just going to sit here like a child with my arms crossed until someone who isn't a newfag tips me and tells me whether it's fine or not, then I'll edit this post and attach the scientific article itself if it's okay.
BUT NOW! ONTO THE ARTICLE! I'll put the entire text into a spoiler, afterwards I'll post explanations for some concepts that weren't found in the pop-sci article but are explained in the actual scientific article. The link to the article is here along with the archive
A new personality construct has been defined that describes people who persistently see themselves as victims within interpersonal conflicts. The research was published in Personality and Individual Differences.
Study authors Rahav Gabay and team describe how the social world is satiated with interpersonal transgressions that are often unpleasant and seemingly unwarranted, such as being interrupted when speaking. While some people can easily brush off these moments of hurt, others tend to ruminate over them and persistently paint themselves as a victim. The authors present this feeling of being the victim as a novel personality construct that influences how people make sense of the world around them.
The researchers call it the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood (TIV), which they define as “an ongoing feeling that the self is a victim, which is generalized across many kinds of relationships.”
Through a series of eight studies among Israeli adults, Gabay and associates sought to test the validity of the construct of TIV and explore the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional consequences of such a personality trait.
An initial three studies established the TIV as a consistent and stable trait that involves four dimensions: moral elitism, a lack of empathy, the need for recognition, and rumination. A follow-up study further found that this tendency for victimhood is linked to anxious attachment — an attachment style characterized by feeling insecure in one’s relationships — suggesting that the personality trait may be rooted in early relationships with caregivers.
Next, two studies offered insight into the cognitive profile of those with TIV. The studies had participants consider scenarios that involved another person treating them unpleasantly — either by having subjects read a vignette describing a partner giving them poor feedback (Study 3) or by having subjects play a game that ended with their opponent taking a larger share of the winnings (Study 4). Interestingly, the two studies found that those who scored higher on the measure of TIV were more likely to desire revenge against the person who wronged them.
In Study 4, this desire for revenge also translated into behavior — those high in TIV were more likely to remove money from their opponent when given the chance, despite being told that this decision wouldn’t increase their own winnings. Participants high in TIV also reported experiencing more intense negative emotions and a higher entitlement to immoral behavior. Mediation analysis offered insight into how this revenge process unfolds. “The higher participants’ TIV, the more they experienced negative emotions and felt entitled to behave immorally. However, only the experience of negative emotions predicted behavioral revenge,” the authors report.
Gabay and colleagues express that their studies indicate that the Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood is a stable personality trait that is linked to particular behavioral, cognitive, and emotional characteristics. “Deeply rooted in the relations with primary caregivers,” the researchers describe, “this tendency affects how individuals feel, think, and behave in what they perceive as hurtful situations throughout their lives.”
The researchers suggest that TIV as a construct offers a framework for understanding how a person’s interpretation of social transgressions can inform feelings of victimhood and lead to revenge behaviors. These insights could inform therapeutic practices for treating such cognitive biases.
The authors suggest that it would be particularly interesting for future studies to explore what happens when people high in TIV are in positions of power. The researchers wonder whether leaders with this persistent tendency to see themselves as a victim might feel more inclined to behave “in a vindictive way.”
The study, “The Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood: The Personality Construct and its Consequences”, was authored by Rahav Gabay, Boaz Hameiri, Tammy Rubel-Lifschitz, and Arie Nadler.
As the pop-sci article explains, there are four dimensions to TIV, or Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood: The need for recognition, Moral elitism, Lack of empathy and Rumination BUT THE ARTICLE NEVER EXPLAINED IT DOOD! *slams controller*
In the scientific article, the need for recognition refers to the person's need to have their victimhood and suffering acknowledged by other people and demand empathy. Doing so entrenches the person's personal vision of reality. Additionally, this dimension also includes forcing the perceived perpetrator to take responsibility and express feelings of guilt for their transgression.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's need for recognition were as follows:
It is important to me that people who hurt me acknowledge that an injustice has been done to me
It is important to me that the person who offended me admits that his or her behavior was wrong
It makes me angry when people don't believe that I was hurt
It is important to me to receive an apology from people who offended me
It is important to me that the person who offended me feels guilty for what he or she did
I feel angry when people ignore my feeling of being hurt
In the scientific article, Moral elitism refers to a perception of a pure morality of self, but a tarnished morality of the other. At the individual level, which we are exploring now, moral elitism may be used to control others by accusing them of immoral, unfair or selfish behavior, while seeing oneself as highly moral and ethical.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's moral elitism were as follows:
I remain considerate of other people even when they don't deserve it
I think I am much more conscientious and moral in my relations with other people compared to their treatment of
me
People often take advantage of my kindness
I give others much more than I receive from them
I feel that other people don't hesitate to take advantage of my weaknesses.
People demand a lot of me without expressing gratitude
In the scientific article, Lack of empathy as you may already imagine, is complete disregard for other people's suffering despite the the person's preoccupation of their own victimhood and suffering, even if they suffered in the same way. Additionally, it includes an increase in the sense of entitlement, aggressiveness and selfishness.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's lack of empathy were as follows:
When people who are close to me feel hurt by my actions, it is very important for me to clarify that justice is on
my side
People who are offended by me are only thinking of themselves
People who claim that I behaved wrongly want me to admit it so they can take advantage of the situation
People claim that I have hurt them because they cannot see that they are the ones hurting me
The main reason that people are offended by me is that they cannot see things from my perspective
It is very important to me that people who were offended by me realize that they are also in the wrong
In the scientific article, Rumination is defined as a focus on the symptoms, causes and consequences of one's distress rather than its solutions. They let those offenses live rent free in their head for so long it causes them distress even long after the offense.
The questions asked in the study which related to a person's rumination were as follows:
It is very hard for me to stop thinking about the injustice others have done to me
Days after the offense I am very preoccupied by the injustice done to me
I am flooded by more anger than I would like every time I remember people who hurt me
I am flooded by negative feelings every time I remember people who hurt me
I think the rest of the pop-sci article did a good enough job giving a short description of the rest of the parts of the article. However, I don't want people to misunderstand what "those high in TIV were more likely to remove money from their opponent when given the chance, despite being told that this decision wouldn’t increase their own winnings" means. That one is a game which is part of Game Theory, namely the Dictator Game. So what that means is that people high in TIV who aren't the Dictator in the game would always choose the option where neither of them would get any money, even though an unfair exchange where for example the Dictator chooses to get 75% of the money while the other player gets 25% would still be a net benefit to both, whereas deciding that both would get 0 would be the most negative possible outcome for both.
Now I could be editorializing, gloating and pointing out how many of these read like a psychological evaluation of Dave, but I don't need to, if you've had the patience to read all of this, you can clearly see how it speaks for itself.
Sure, but it'll still be a paragraph or two. Psychologists research and "discover" a new personality "construct" (read: disorder) named TIV or Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood. It can be either individual or collective, but we're focusing on the former here. It developing or not depends on early socialization by parents or other primary caregivers. There are four main dimensions to it: The need for recognition, as in the need for the wider public to empathize with their suffering and for the perceived perpetrator to feel guilt. Moral elitism where they believe they are morally pure and everyone else is immoral. Lack of empathy for other people even if they suffered the same way. Rumination, meaning that they let those who offended them live rent free in their heads for a long time basically.
The second important part of it is that people who have high levels of TIV are also highly vindictive and strongly seek revenge on those they believe wronged them. Additionally, they also believe to be entitled to immoral acts of revenge. This at first glance goes against the Moral elitism dimension of TIV, but keep in mind that Moral elitism just means that they think themselves pure and moral, so in their heads they justify any immoral act against a person they're taking revenge against with that.
The need for recognition: Wears shirts with his own face on them
Moral elitism where they believe they are morally pure and everyone else is immoral: Tevin is a drug dealer and giving him money for nothing is illegal
Lack of empathy for other people even if they suffered the same way: Fuck you wardawgleader! Quit trying to be the king of suffering just because your family member died! I have to do my own laundry!
Before you commit to a serious relationship with someone, learn to identify these 6 signes of low self-awareness.
nickwignall.com
#1 - Never admitting mistakes.
#2 - Criticizing others.
Sound like someone we know?
#3 - Avoiding hard decisions
Phil has displayed that as well. He was considering bankruptcy for a really long time.
He also threatened to quit Twitch over the multiple DMCA claims last year. Now, if you suggest that he'll call you a moron.
#4 - Being vague about their feelings.
He does this too. Look at the infamous depression stream.
#5 - Worrying about the future.
#6 - Ruminating about the past.
He absolutely does those last things too! He talks more about the past and the future than the present.
EDIT: Of course every lolcow lacks self-awareness, but with Phil's case it's just so... extreme. His extremely low self-awareness is the single defining characteristic about him. It affects every aspect of his life. Everything about him can be traced back to that. People call him a narcissist but I think his lack of self-awareness runs deeper. It's that bad. It really is fascinating.
Without a shout of a doubt, Phil is a STRONG candidate for being autistic. Also, there's certain things he says that I still find strange. One of those is him saying "human" instead of "person." Ex. of a DSP sentence; "What human can spend hours and hours watching my content?" In a normal speech function, someone would've said "person." instead of "human." Not quite dehumanizing someone, but in social situations, saying "human" instead of "person", it's a social queue that someone is taught during the developmental times in life. It's been noted that Phil is academically gifted - most people that are autistic are gifted in math and science and have amazing skills on that front - but their social queue's come off as future school shooter.
Phil attempts to use "different" words for common things because he doesn't want to be seen as an idiot. The way he over-elaborates and over-explains mundane shit with words like "custom" and "homemade" easily points this out.
Phil may have been Valedictorian, but that hardly speaks to academic prowess. He went to a school that was more into athletics, and (having attended one of those myself) school won't have been particularly hard. He could have easily scooted by with cake classes and scored that award. And his college? Fucker couldn't hack it in computer science so he got a real mature adult business degree. You can practically sleep through that entire program and still get that little piece of paper.
Since it's undeniable at this point that DoxingStupidPaypigs runs his community (especially his inner circle) like a cult, and going back to when a few of us were talking about whether he'd be a good public speaker or not, I just wanted to share this clip from his IRL conference because it's a good example of how he can be charismatic in front of an audience when they're his fans.
He's actually a decent public speaker all things considered, and you can tell not only does he love talking about himself, he also loves the power of the podium, so-to-speak.
I've always assumed he was a boomer who discovered streaming and got an ego, and therefore kind of boring. There are enough people in management/executive or academic jobs who are basically just as flawed as him, but DSP's life is just more public.
The sad part is he's above average fitness and probably intelligence for his age, which says a lot about the average person. If you watch most 40 year olds play video games, they will be just as shit as Dave.
above average fitness? are you having a giggle? he looks 10 years older than he is,has a broken back,general atrophy on all of his body,post nasal drip,has chicken legs,no muscle at all, not big but still fat.saggy manboobs.etc
