(((YouTube))) is at it again

>New video from Lauren Rose
>Banned on youtube for 'harassment'
>Bitchute link:
bitchute.com/video/4nhZuIoXn-4/

Other urls found in this thread:

paypal.me/LaurenRoseTips
bitchute.com/video/4nhZuIoXn-4/
twitter.com/LaurenRoseUltra
jewish-languages.org/jewish-english-lexicon/words/176
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

this chick is hot.

paypal.me/LaurenRoseTips


I thought she wasn't a penny pitcher

She's cute but not hot

She's the girl you'd ask out the bar before asking the hot chick

RIP 1A

Redheads have been known to be a menace to the jews for they are capable as leaders proven throughout history.

cute>hot

...

>it's another episode of Lauren Rose makes a video using sarcasm

She is decent looking for a Youtuber, but her brain is void of any actual content.

That's disappointing. This sort of thing seems to always lead to a dependence on the paying base, reducing the quality of the content to whatever produces the broadest appeal to maximize payout.

Doesn't matter. If something gets blocked on a popular platform I promote it here.

I don't care if YouTube bans your fav e-celebs. They'll have to make their fame some other way.

not really. she's my type. i think she;s hoiiiyt

This

This

Even if she's right she comes across as boring

only virgins say that

I would be very surprised if you are not Lauren Rose or a 'fan' doing viral marketing.

Her content simply has nothing of value in them so I doubt you simply stumbled upon the video. The video in particular is not worthy of any discussion at all, it comes in a long line of 'Lauren Rose trying to be funny' videos.

No she didn't get banned from jewtube.

She's cute and beautiful, but not hot.

Cuteness and hotness are like polar opposites, you can not at once have a woman be both at the same time. Cuteness reminds of innocence, while hotness requires a level of dirtiness. A ''hot'' woman is a pump & dump that is not marriage material, cute and beautiful is when you wife them.

she's fat and has a pumpkin face.

no dice sir.

signed, your 5 star general. get this bitch off of here.

She has a fat face but I don't think her body is fat

Why are women trying to be funny? it never really works

>Posting a loser who never even fought.

I like her videos! Anyone else here got high functioning autism? Im new here trying to see if any others like me here

it's one of her thirsty fanboys

well then I don't like "hot" women and actually find them quite repulsive

...

They're women living in a society which for the last 60 years has told them that they're just as capable as a man at being funny.
It's our job to tell them that they're not.

Ew this arrogant pig deserves the Guillotine.

CUTIE PIE. BE MY WAIFU

She kind of cute but the pinkness of that skin drives me fucking insane

>bitchute.com/video/4nhZuIoXn-4/
got the youtube link? might still be on hooktube

I unironically just saw her recommended by someone I'm subscribed to and subscribed to her without hearing her speak a word just because she is pretty and I want to make babies with her.

I feel guilty.

Meanwhile we live in a culture where women think they should be ''hot'' instead of cute, decent and beautiful.

Sure hot girls will get wankers after them that want to blow loads inside them if they post asses on instagräm, but they won't find a respectable man that way. Some women appear to have as a mating strategy to get top-tier seeds and get a beta cuck provider that will feel ''lucky'' for being able to have access to a wet hole.

>jewtube strikes again
Reminder that this should be entirely illegal.

>BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE

Oink

that does not matter. she is low tier dna and must be exterminated.

or maybe you are just a virgin and would fuck anything.

Freedom of speech =!= freedom from consequences

Hate speech =!= free speech

Deal with it or keep your opinions off of the private platform that is youtube.

DON'T REPLY TO THIS you're merely wasting your time. Thread filtered and hidden but I guarantee you autists will memepost "jidf shill leftypol boogeyman soyboy good goy bugman glow in the dark cia fed"

Is there an HD option on bitchute or is it all 320p gain silo in there?

>bitch ute

>publically traded companies that take tax dollars can violate basic human rights because they own a server
Do the world a favor and die already.

it's called being huwhite

more like huoink

that's specifically what makes her so hot you retard.

She's cute, not hot.

>Pig squealing intensifies

Why can't I be like this awesome Finn, I'm just autistic.

Same here, but with lust.

I'm not a virgin. I prefer cute women. Only faggots a use people of being virgins.

So true. This Finn knows what he's talking about.

kys, attention whore

death penalty for anti-Semites and holocaust deniers

Why do you fags still even bother with JewTube? No serious. People bitch and complain about censorship and crap but still use and support the companies. Fucking leave.

>death penalty for anti-Semites and holocaust deniers
lolwut? Wrong thread?

There's nowhere else to go, which is why jewtube should be regulated and prevented from censorship of wrongthink.

>BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE

HAHAH FAGGIT. If she has a problem with the TOS (she agreed to when she made the account) she's free to voice her opinions elsewhere. She's got bookface, vimeo, etc

>basic human rights

HAHAH

BitChite , PewTube are good alternatives. There's Gab on Gab.ai when you move over to Gab. ai and tell Twitter to go to the ovens.

*Gab TV on Gab.ai

Pretty sure Google is a net tax payer and the share owners still get to decide how it's run.

>companies can put things in a TOS that violate basic human rights
It's like you don't understand anything.

The entire point of government is to regulate psychopathic CEOs from violating the rights of citizens for empty profit. Youtube/google is one utility regulation away from subhuman commie trash like yourself being forced to actually argue against ideas rather than censoring them, Susan.

Bahahahah this girl is actually funny

There is no such thing as "basic human rights."
>The entire point of government is to regulate psychopathic CEOs from violating the rights of citizens for empty profit.
Which part of the constitution says that?

>being allowed to post videos on Google's video sharing service is a basic human right
Yea no.

>and the share owners still get to decide how it's run.
And the purpose of government is to prevent them from violating human rights of citizens in their business practices. 'Bake the cake' has already answered the question of free association. The question is how long will it take for these neoliberal psychopaths to be regulated as the utility they de facto are.

this, imagine how red her ass would get from a single spank

You don't have a right that insures that you can use their services.

>There is no such thing as "basic human rights."
Of course there is, psychopath. That's the entire point of the US Constitution, to protect the people from those rights being violated by the government. The problem now is neoliberal corporations are quickly becoming the same entity as the government.

see stupid.
Also, a daily reminder to the thread that lobertarians are LITERALLY mentally-malformed subhumans, who are almost as dangerous to human society as marxist liberals are, because they enable them.

Not an argument.

They can't violate basic human rights with their services (see: gay cake). It is objectively unethical, and the point of government is to protect citizens from psychopathic CEOs money-seeking behavior.

She is literally a white nationalist. Yes, I said white nationalist, not a civic nationalist. Half her twitter is she is depressed she can't find a white nationalist husband.
twitter.com/LaurenRoseUltra

>a corporation can violate basic human rights with their service
Not an argument. see

Which basic human right insures that you are able to post videos on the internet?

You don't have a "basic right" that would insure you're able to post videos on the internet.

Free speech, stupid. You can't refuse service to someone based on their preference for gay sex, and corporations shouldn't be allowed to refuse service based on political views. All legal speech should be legally prevented from being removed from any publically traded company's social platforms.

Of course it's a basic right

see , autism-spectrum sperg.

Also it's kind of retarded that you lot support the baker in the "bake the cake" argument then support the customer in this case.

w....wheat fields

pink or pale skin white girls are the only ones that will be spared in the Roastocaust

I'm citing legal precedent. Corporations having the freedom to violate basic human rights with their services has already been answered: it's not okay. There's at least two major suits against youtube right now, and enough legal precedent on similar case law they have a good shot of preventing youtube from continuing to censor arguments against neoliberal globalist dogma.

And the funny thing is, idiot ancap retards like yourself would actually think there's a problem with that.

>if I say uploading videos is a right enough times than it will become a right

HAHAHAHA YOU ARE THE DUMBEST PERSON ON THIS BOARD HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Knew it was just a matter of time. These e-thots are all the same shit.

You know that she was defeated and raped in front of the public right?

Fair skin > Pink skin
cringe

>>if I say uploading videos is a right
Again, moron. Free speech is a basic right. Expressing that in video format is a manifestation of that right. Why is this hard for you?
>autism-spectrum brain which is malformed
Oh, that's why.

With forcing private institutions to pay for you free speech? Yea I would indeed have a problem with that. If you're all about legal precedent then you'll have to wait until Google's army of lawyers takes a shit all over those lawsuits.

Counterargument is that youtube normally demonetizes channels, so youtubers always have an incentive to increase their viewer base (because they are paid on the basis of total views). Now that youtube is demonetizing these people, it's a question of whether they'll be able to support themselves independently. If youtube knows it stop paying people, and the fanbases will not make up the difference, they can bully youtubers into making sure they push the "approved" messages only.

This attitude is how we'll lose. The e-celebs aren't for our benefit- they're for normies' benefits.

Lauren fags btfo, Roosh called it

jewish-languages.org/jewish-english-lexicon/words/176
>Seems like a perfect alternative

First sentence you should read "youtube normally pays channels based on views, so youtubers always...."

So not being able to speak at a private event also limits your free speech?

>private event
>publically traded, open social platform
Analogies not your thing, I take it?

>With forcing private institutions to pay for you free speech?
No, it's forcing publically traded corporations to not discriminate based on political views, that is - disallowing them from violating the right to free expression of those who hold those views.
>Yea I would indeed have a problem with that.
Because you're a marxist-enabling subhuman sperg who deserves to be shoveled into the ditches right after them ;)
>If you're all about legal precedent
No, just about the most basic of human ethics. I'm simply pointing out there's legal precedent that gives a decent chance for the people to win out over psychopathic CEOs who only care about money, and the retards like yourself who are just fine enabling them to destroy human civilization in that aim.

Gorgeous Lauren Rose.

>private events cant be organized by publicaly traded companies
>private events can't be open to the public
You monumental brainlet.

>calls me marxist enabling
>literally every comment he made includes references to the government forcing ebil corporation to do whatever

it's what white people look like, you 56 percent misceginated sewer sludge

>You don't have a right that insures that you can use their services

stand back everyone, imuh private property is here all the way back from 2014!

Look while I find Boudica's revolt a failure I do admit that the unwillingness to surrender to the romans and instead go out fighting was noble

>"If the war is lost, the people will also be lost and it is not necessary to worry about their needs for elemental survival. On the contrary, it is best for us to destroy even these things. For the nation has proved to be weak, and the future belongs entirely to the strong people of the East. Whatever remains after this battle is in any case only the inadequate, because the good ones will be dead."