Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫💀 @alyx@gameliberty.club

@l0wk3y @realcaseyrollins
If they're posting/retweeting the same things then it's likely. Otherwise... hard to say. I've had a meeting with a bunch of bots once. They will post and retweet the EXACT same things, in the exact same order.

@realcaseyrollins @l0wk3y
Pretty much what I was thinking. The account isn't brand new, has some followers... doesn't look that suspicious on a first glance.

@matrix
It doesn't matter how many times you tell them. The idiots refuse to believe people who had real experience with this shit.

@RehnSturm256
cc @theblessing

@matrix
They're not against bootlicking. They just want people to lick socialist boots. Not exactly a secret.

@matrix
Still wrong.

I guess everyone is getting into the game streaming ... erm... game... Ok, that sounded better in my head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raZCMVyh3WM

@crunklord420
*clears throat*
hahahahahahahahahaahaha.... *sigh* HA!

Ok, I think I'm done laughing.

@crunklord420
Don't know. It never happens to me.

@mewmew @crunklord420
Sure, you can use "using" too there, but it's not really needed. Even in my own language it is implied by using "with".

It has to do with ideology, because it biases you to frame a statement in either the best way or worst way possible. You become predisposed to interpreting something that is even slightly unclear in a particular way.

@crunklord420
She's cute, but the purple pants are an eyesore.

@crunklord420
Wait... who's planning to rape/murder? The rioters? I'm guessing "inside informants" means people within the groups of rioters.

@Jack @mewmew @crunklord420
To be fair, I probably have too little at this point.

@mewmew
No, the writers assumed people reading it would be of similar ideological position.
As for the meaning @crunklord420 took from this, it's not nonsensical imo. Although for his meaning, I would change the order of the words like so: "Peaceful protesters compete with looting, arson, for nation's attention".

@Jack @mewmew @crunklord420
The easiest way to tell if this was the case, is if the title was quickly removed (cause someone noticed the problem) and either not used again, or corrected. But we'd need a longer section of footage to be able to tell.

@mewmew @crunklord420
"looters" is a noun. "looting" is a verb used as an object.
The statement basically works as a comparison. When you compare A to B, you need to make sure they're both the same thing. Either A and B are both verbs, nouns, etc. If A is a noun, and B a verb, it kinda implies A does B. Shit, even if you're taking "looting" as a noun, you're still comparing "protesters" people with "looting" an action. The comparison doesn't work right. You need to compare either 2 categories of people: "protesters" and "looters", or 2 categories of action: "protesting" and "looting".
Now, if you're ok with saying that the statement is bad grammar, I'm perfectly fine with accepting that as a plausible explanation.

@mewmew @crunklord420
If that was their intention, I think they should have said "compete for nation's attention with rioters, looters, etc". I think you're supposed to put nouns there, not verbs.

@11112011
Is it really though? Cause I hear people are less inclined to rebuild businesses after they see these uncontrolled riots.