PSA: Deboonking the Traffic Soyboys Part 23 – Your Truck Just Dilated my MidSection Chud

Not Just Bikes is at it again with another fact-free video whining about SUVs. You see, these stupid trucks are literally killing us.

I get tired of spending my time transcribing this midwit so I’ve been putting this off. But this is so absurd that I have to.

(2:15)

But today light trucks and SUVs make up almost 80% of all new car sales in the US. 80 percent! The auto industry has been heavily pushing these vehicles for years, and it’s been done to avoid regulations, meaning more profit for car manufacturers.

This is possible because in America SUVs are classified as light trucks, which aren’t subject to the same safety and emissions standards as light cars.

Crossover SUVs (CUVs), such as the Volkswagen Nivus pictured above, are included as SUVs for the purpose of this discussion. This is not a point of contention, I’m including this because some of you might not know what a crossover refers to in this context, and it’ll be relevant later. 

(3:30)

What really kicked off the explosion of SUVs was, ironically, fuel efficiency regulations. The corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards required all automobile manufacturers in the US to improve the average fuel economy of their entire fleet, or face financial penalties. But here’s the catch, American automakers lobbied hard so that light trucks were classified differently than passenger cars. This was necessary, they argued, because unlike cars light trucks were used by honest hardworking redblooded American patriots!

(17:00)

The [American] auto industry specifically promoted SUVs to avoid CAFE emission standards.

(27:00) 

American automakers have literally turned off the production of station wagons and sedans and smaller vehicles to focus almost exclusively on the more lucrative market for light trucks. People argue that people prefer SUVs, and automakers are just responding to demand. But that demand is coming off the back of billions of dollars in advertising and marketing pushed because SUVs are artificially cheaper than they should be, thanks to the light truck exemption. 

Golly gosh darnit, those damn American automobile manufacturers are at it again! It was bad enough when they deviously told children that cars were dangerous in order to boost car sales, but this is just a whole new level of America-specific insidiousness. It’s a good thing that these very specific regulations – the cause of inflated SUV sales – are an America only thing, otherwise we might see the SUV/crossovers exploding in popularity in Europe as well.

(31:40)

And even if the US is too far gone, European cities need to deal with this issue immediately. SUVs and crossovers now account for 40% of all vehicles sold in the EU, a 900% increase since 2001.

Turns out SUVs and crossover SUVs are the best selling vehicle type in Europe. Did we miss the part where he explained the regulatory loopholes that caused SUVs to be popular over there? I watched the entire video. Then I watched it again. Then I watched it for a third time, and I can assure you that no, we absolutely did not miss the part where he explains the little known regulations that make SUVs artificially cheaper in Europe. That’s because there aren’t any.

This unquantified bullshit is LOLbertarian tier Just So theorycrafting, and absurdly common amongst Urbanites. They start with a semi-plausible premise. Then they absolutely refuse to try debunking their own hypothesis. This is why they mindlessly repeat that car ownership took off all over the world because this one time in 1940’s Los Angeles there might have been a small conspiracy to shut down an already unprofitable streetcar line. Or downtown streets were for children playing before cars came around, because horses never existed.

In the very last piece we saw Not Just Bikes give us the genius insight that downtown areas are more expensive than the outskirts of towns, and then misinterpret this to mean that the negroes are subsidizing the Whites in suburbia. And don’t even get me started on “muh induced demand,” or the just so bullshit about “safety in numbers,” as a solution to crimes of colour.

By the way, KiwiFarms user Quaawaa points out that crossover’s don’t even get the CAFE exemptions that pickup trucks and full sized SUVs get. I can’t confirm that, but it’s hilarious if true. Also, Not Just Bikes never bothered to quantify how much financial advantage is given to the SUV markets due to this regulatory loophole, which is what any moderately serious person would have done. 

I am tired of these Urbanite antifas lies and nonsense. After this piece I’m going to destroy the “Suburban Ponzi Scheme,” garbage and call it quits. These people are too constantly and aggravatingly wrong for me to spend any more time on them. I really think that you only need to show people that they’re bizarrely wrong once or twice and then they get it.

But today we’re using this video as one of the last in depth looks at the non-sequiturs, snuck in premises, terrible non-arguments, and outright falsehoods of the traffic troons. It’s a real grab bag of dishonesty, so we’ll start at the 11 minute mark.

Just after telling people to sign his petition, NJP decides to Well Ackshually four wheel drive.

Light trucks are usually four wheel drive as well, which is pitched as another safety feature.

These damn automobile manufacturers, pitching 4WD as a safety feature. What are they going to do next, pitch airbags as a safety feature? What about roll bars. Are they going to pitch those as a safety feature after that? When will it ever end?

4WD is great for accelerating in slippery conditions like mud, but what 4WD doesn’t do is help you slow down. That means overconfident SUV drivers can go as fast as they want in bad conditions, as long as they’re not planning on stopping.

It’s like induced demand, but for safety!

Hyper-intelligent people understand that having your car sliding all over the place when accelerating is no big deal. For instance, if it’s snowy, and your car starts going sideways into the oncoming lane, not an issue. The only time when you need traction is when you are stopping or turning. Also, 4WD actually helps when turning unless all four wheels start slipping at the same time, but let’s ignore that. Once we take into account the crucial Overconfidence Factor it’s basically suicidal to have 4WD.

By the way, anti-lock braking is actually bad guyz. If you’re stupid you would think that it makes you more safe. What it actually does is make you overconfident. ABS can only help when stopping, but lots of times you can get into crashes while starting. For instance, what if you hit the gas and your end starts sliding into the oncoming lane because you don’t have 4WD…

Everything that adds safety actually takes away safety because of the Overconfidence Factor. It’s time to take out airbags, rollbars, and backup cameras as well. We can’t be having the Overconfidence Factor slaughtering our children any longer. In fact, let’s add knives pointing at the face of the drivers and put landmines at the edges of roads. The more dangerous we make the driving experience, the safer.

(8:45) 

When a person gets hit by a car they’re typically thrown onto the hood. This can cause injury to lower legs, which sucks but generally doesn’t kill you at low speeds. But the higher front end of an SUV means the impact is centered near the torso and head, which is much more deadly. People hit by SUVs are also more likely to hit their head on the ground or go under the vehicle because of their high ground clearance.

Damn those vehicles with high front ends!

Are we going to have a talk about how many people are murdered each year by buses due to their higher front profiles? Are we going to factor this in to our “let’s shove everyone in buses,” plans? Of course not. Nor is Jason Slaughter, aka Not Just Bikes, ever going to quantify his previous assertion that higher profile vehicles are more deadly per hit. To ask for easily quantifiable proof from an Urbanite is to ask the impossible. 

(18:30)

We should be moving to lighter electric vehicles that require smaller batteries with better range, lower cost, and fewer resources needed to make them, but we’re going in exactly the opposite direction, where even the smallest Tesla has a curb weight of over 1,600 kg, significantly more than a similarly sized Toyota Yaris sedan.

Why don’t all the engineers who are working on electric vehicles give them smaller batteries that magically also give them more range while costing less? Just make them cheaper and better in every way. I can’t believe that it takes YouTubers to tell them this. 

Jason Slaughter makes Elon Musk look like a real engineer. No, you can’t just make small electric vehicles, because the batteries need to be about twenty times heavier than the gasoline/diesel a normal vehicle carries for the same range. That’s why the Tesla Semi is a dumb idea with no market niche other than annoying faggots pompously praising their imaginary moral superiority as they pontificate about global warming. 

But then again, maybe Tesla should hire Jason Slaughter. He can tell them that they should make cars that are lighter, have better range, and are cheaper. Then they can be like “Wow, we never thought of that. Thanks ideas guy!” 

We did it reddit. We ended global warming.

After that Jason can go inform plane manufacturers that they should make their planes faster, with better range, lower fuel consumption, quieter, with lower takeoff and landing speeds, all while being smaller but also carrying more passengers and cargo. Bet they never thought of that before Jason “Genius” Slaughter pointed it out to them!

(19:50)

Station wagons are more useful than SUVs for almost everyone in a city. They’re easier to get in and out of. They’re more maneuverable, and much easier to park in cities where, again, almost all SUV driving takes place. 

Thanks for admitting that the SUVs have more utility than the station wagons. Hey Jason, what percentage of driving needs to be done outside of cities for the SUV to make sense? Is it 10%? Is it 1%? Have you never actually thought about the negative utility implications of a vehicle that fails at something you ask it to do, even if that particular task is a relatively small percent of the overall usage of the vehicle?

Most of the time when I’m driving there’s nothing in my trunk. I guess I should be happy with a car that doesn’t have a trunk at all then, by this genius logic. It’s the same idea as demanding that cars have an arbitrarily high usage rate, only now applied to individual aspects of a car.

Four seater cars massively outsell two seater cars, despite almost all of the driving people do in four seater cars being just themselves with no passengers. I guess everyone is a dumb dumb for having the extra seats just because they occasionally get used. If they aren’t always being used then they have no value, and everyone on the planet who thinks otherwise is just not the genius that NJB is. 

As an aside, have you seen Boeing’s new jet? It’s 10% lighter than the competitors, more streamlined, and with more fuel. It’s better in every way. They accomplished this by removing the landing gear. That might sound a little crazy, but don’t worry. Almost all of the flight doesn’t need landing gear, so I think it’ll be fine.

Our family recently removed the guest room in our house. It’s only used when guests come over, which is almost never. As a result, we decided that it has no use at all for some reason. Probably because we’re very intelligent.

(20:00)

SUVs are built to be cool and curvy so that aging Gen Xers can pretend that they never became parents, but this means that the actual usable space inside is shockingly low. 

The monstrously large Cadillac Escalade has 25.5 cubic feet of carrying space behind the last row of seats, which is less than something like the Subaru Outback, or Audi A6 all road, both of which have over 30.

Wow, this is amazing! Look at how much larger than the Subaru Outback the Cadillac Carbrainalade is, and yet it has less usable space! It’s massively bigger on the outside, yet smaller on the inside.

Let me prove it to you. Here’s the Subaru Outback’s cargo capacity.

Cars US News:

The Outback shines when it comes to hauling cargo, offering more room than any of its wagon classmates. There’s 32.6 cubic feet of space behind the second row and 75.6 cubic feet with the second-row seats folded down. It also has a low liftover height, which makes it easy to load cargo. A hands-free power liftgate is available.

Now let’s see Paul Allen’s SUV.

Cars US News:

The Escalade provides excellent cargo space for the luxury large SUV class. The regular-wheelbase model has 25.5 cubic feet of room behind the third row, 72.9 cubic feet with the third-row seats folded and 121 cubic feet with the second- and third-row seats folded.

B-b-but I was told that the massively larger car had less room because reasons. We were so close reddit. We almost magically made a car that is massively smaller have more room inside because the laws of physics are for caRBrAiNS and not enlightened Urbanite retards like ourselves.

Not Just Bikes continues.

But the numbers are deceiving –

Finally, some sense. I know that these people are the traffic antifas, but it’s nice to see the smallest smidgeon of reality seep in here. It’s not like he’ll continue to – 

because the fancy design means the usable space in an Escalade is surprisingly small. Of course, you can take out the rear seats of an Escalade, but you can fold down the seats of a station wagon, too.

Excuse me sir, but in my reality 121 cubic feet is larger than 75.6 cubic feet. Also, you don’t need to take out the rear seats of an Escalade. They fold down, and so do the second row seats. If you have the third row folded down you get the same usable trunk space as you get with a Subaru Outback with its second row of seats folded down, but you can also seat four adults while you’re carrying the goods, as opposed to just two in the Outback. When both cars are configured to seat four adults, the Escalade has 72.9 cubic feet of cargo space, while the Subaru Outback has 32.6 cubic feet, which is far less than half. 

This is not complicated. Of course the bigger car has more space inside. Of course the thing which we would expect would be true is true. Two minutes of Googling was enough to debunk this Malcolm Gladwell tier garbage. 

In contrast, Jason Slaughter sat down at his computer to write this script. He took a look at the gigantic Cadillac Escalade, noticed that the area behind the third row of foldable seats was slightly smaller than behind the second row of the Subaru Outback, and then went “wow, but like, it’s so much bigger my dude.”

At no point in time did he pause, and question if he might have missed something. Instead, he assumed that everyone who was responsible for designing the Cadillac Escalade was just a dumb dumb. Oh and don’t ya know that station wagons can fold their seats down? Because you should know that. Apparently you need to take out the Escalade’s seats even though you very much do not need to do that, because they also fold down.

The premise of his argument is so fucking retarded that I can’t let this go. By this idiotic non-logic the gigantic articulated bus above has less cargo capacity than the station wagon, and is therefore just a waste of space. You might be thinking “but, isn’t the space taken up by seating.” God, you are such a dumb CaRBraIn for thinking that. Seating is an invalid thing to use the interior space of an automobile for, because reasons. The only valid purpose of interior space is for cargo.

It’s not “the fancy design,” of the Escalade that makes it have less space behind the third row of seats when compared to the second row of seats on the Subaru Outback. It’s the fact that it has an extra row of seats. Again, I know this is obvious, but I have to repeat this to make sure you understand that yes, he is actually arguing that the Escalade has less usable space than the Subaru Outback. This is actually happening. 

SUVs hold much less than you’d think, because so much space is wasted by fancy styling, unnecessarily high ground clearance, car smashing bumpers, and pedestrian killing hoods.

It’s not the styling. It’s the entire extra row of seating you absolute moron.

Above is the Cadillac Escalade with the seats up. Below we see the Subaru Outback. 

In my reality, 7 seats is more seating capacity than 5. This is what the Escalade looks like all the seats down. Sure does seem like a lot of room. Below we see the Subaru Outback. 

I don’t know how to make this any visually simpler for the reading impaired. The larger vehicle has more space inside. “Pedestrian killing hoods,” and “car smashing bumpers,” don’t take up space on the inside of the car. The laws of physics are a thing, and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for even having to fact-check this.

UPDATE: Also, notice how the Escalade is more than a foot taller than the Outback? If you jacked it up a few more inches it would have the exact same interior space, because ground clearance/ride height and interior space are unrelated. Yet another example of how these people have no clue what they are talking about and are aggravatingly and absurdly wrong about everything.

I’m not sayin’ that you can’t carry stuff in an Escalade, only that you don’t need an Escalade to carry stuff. Have you ever tried moving a bunch of stuff with a station wagon. I have, many times. It’s a wide open rectangular cuboid of spacious goodness.

How does this clown know what everyone needs in terms of interior space? I grew up playing hockey, and often we would carpool with other kids. One of my best friends growing up had a brother one year older who played on the same team. As a result, there were three of us in there and three bags of gear. Guess what car their mother drove.

That’s right, a Cadillac Escalade. You need a minivan or SUV to carry all the gear and people. A station wagon like the Subaru Outback just won’t do. That these Urbanite bugcreatures are mostly childless and friendless losers does not mean that they have the right to speak for everyone when it comes to their personal needs.

Faggot.

A station wagon is a superior vehicle for families. More storage space, better fuel efficiency, and plenty of room for kids.

Earlier he was hedging, and using some deliberately misleading language about space behind the last row of seating or whatever. But here he outright says that station wagons have more storage space than SUVs. Jonathan, take it away. 

To be clear, the example he picked proves the exact opposite of what he claims. He then uses this to generalize to all SUVs and station wagons. This is incredibly stupid, and it is well known that SUVs, and even crossover SUVs, have more interior space on average than station wagons. Here’s a good comparison of two vehicles by Best Ride.

Best Ride:

Two myths we feel we can say we truly busted is that “Wagons offer the same space as crossover/SUVs.” Given a very similar footprint, they simply do not. Another is that “Wagons offer crossover/SUV advantages at a lower price.” At least in the case of this premium manufacturer, who we feel has pricing that is in line with what is offered, that is not the case. The crossover/SUV is less expensive when comparably equipped.

Real shocker that even the Europeans are gobbling them up, despite no special regulation loophole.

Jason Slaughter continues by making an implicitly anti-White joke about how dumb stereotypical White People are rubes who got hoodwinked into thinking that SUVs are cool. This is odd, because the Cadillac Escalade in particular was known as a car for Aspiring Rapper-Americans, but Jason Slaughter has gallons of soy rushing through his system so this is to be expected. 

And if you really need a lot of space or extra seating on a regular basis, a minivan beats an SUV every time. I’ve seen this myself when we once – 

I’m just going to skip his unverified personal story about how he had to hold some of his organic dildos on his lap when he took an SUV Uber to the local fuckparty to hold his wife’s hand as her boyfriend gave her “more pleasure than I ever could,” or what have you. I’m just not interested in this lying weasel’s anecdotes.  

A minivan will hold more stuff. And it’s easier for passengers to get in and out of too because the doors are bigger and it’s lower to the ground.

Minivans are simply RACIALLY SUPERIOR to SUVs then. 

Turns out they’re excellent at shuttling lots of people or cargo on perfectly paved roads, but have poor towing and offroading capability, for obvious reasons. 

But thanks, Jason. It’s nice to know that an underpowered vehicle that is designed purely for shuttling cargo and kids around paved roads is better at doing that than a CUV which is more of a jack of all trades vehicle. By the way, F1 cars can put out much faster lap times than any SUV. Did you know that?

Cars that are optimized for one small thing tend to be really good at that small thing. When you focus on the things they are good at, and not the things they are weaker at, then you can argue for just about anything. For the record, minivans and station wagons are great vehicles, if they’re what you need. I’m just pushing back against his absurd premise that SUVs don’t have any advantages, when that’s obviously not true.

It’s very apparent in Europe that actual tradespeople, you know, the people who actually need a vehicle with lots of space on a regular basis, almost universally choose vans. A typical European van will easily carry more than a pickup truck, and certainly more than an SUV, and the lower bed is easier to load, too. 

Behold, the tradesperson.

I have written 23 pieces on these Urbanite midwits, each one probably averaging around 5k words. That’s well over 100k words at this point. I have yet to encounter a single argument they have made that isn’t stupid. Occasionally they’ll stumble onto something that is somewhat correct, and then immediately shit all over themselves.

Above we see a delivery van, below we see a welder’s setup. Truly this blue collar Racist of Whiteness should have simply used a delivery van instead. Because if a delivery van is good at delivering Amazon packages, then it must be good at carrying dirty and heavy equipment across unfinished rough construction sites. Who wouldn’t want a gas powered welding machine to be running inside the enclosed space of a delivery van? 

If Not Just Bikes pointed out that there are a lot of people who buy SUVs and pickup trucks for image reasons, fine. If he argued that these vehicles may be more dangerous to other people on the road, due to their larger size, poorer frontward visibility, etcetera, sure.

Instead he whines about “insecure suburbanites”, throws out the term “SUV apologist,” makes vague anti-White remarks throughout, whines about speed limits, and then makes easily disproven and bizarre claims of SUVs secretly having less interior space than station wagons when he isn’t creating a Just So story about SUV dominance that he himself contradicts in his own video.

To top it all off, he apologizes for terrorism.

With effectively nothing being done to slow the adoption of larger vehicles, some people are taking things into their own hands. A group calling themselves the Tyre Extinguishers have started deflating the tires of SUVs in Europe. Their stated goal is to make it impossible to own an SUV in the city.

Antifas have done similar things here in Canada. In that case, Kitchener, Ontario. They’re scum who should be publicly flogged, not celebrated.

Now obviously this is really extreme behaviour, but let’s be clear, this group only exists because of the complete and utter regulatory silence that has come from city and federal governments when it comes to curbing the problems caused by SUVs in cities. 

Behold, the absolute Chad publicly supporting crimes done against random people for the crime of owning an SUV.

This is not the first time Slaughter has apologized for this filth.

Nor is it the first time he dismisses the peasants anger towards crime in this very video.  

(5:50)

The real winning strategy [to sell SUVs] was to make scared people feel safe. Early focus groups [in the 80s] showed that Americans were obsessed with crime and violence, so automobile manufacturers took advantage of that. The city is a big scary place, protect yourself with a big stupid car!

Hey faggot, the name of your video is “These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us.” Do criminals ever kill anyone? Hell, do criminals ever kill people with SUVs?

The most infamous example of an asshole driver in an SUVs running over little children, even murdering six year old Jackson Sparx. This is not mentioned in the entirety of Jason Slaughters video. He whines about assholes driving SUVs, what about this particular asshole?

If Darrell Brooks was Dirk Brooks and was an NJP activist who accidentally drove into a bunch of BLMers, I can guarantee you that this faggot named Jason would have mentioned him in his video. Never forget that the traffic antifas are anti-White cunts with absolutely nothing to offer anyone in the real world.

Obligatory Stonetoss.

(32:00)

I hear people justifiably complaining about the infestation of giant land rovers in European cities. But look at how small this Range Rover looks next to a full sized American SUV.

Shoutout once again to Farms user Quaawaa, who says the following.

Those are two completely different Range Rover models (a full-size Range Rover vs a Range Rover Evoque), and the one in European picture is the same size as the Ford Expedition in the Canadian picture.

At least he knows what a full-sized SUV is now.

You’d think with so many baffling mistakes and inaccuracies that Jason Slaughter must have whipped up this script in a few hours, right? Maybe he took a day to skim over it for spelling errors, and then he banged out this video. You’d be wrong. I’ll transcribe this below.

Not Just Bikes Uncensored Reddit:

I’m not really sure I’ve “taken a step back”, but I am working as much as I want to work, and I am also actively promoting other urbanist creators. I am much more interested in online urbanism becoming an unstoppable force online rather than growing my own channel, though.

I release less often because I have covered most of the “easy” topics that I wanted to cover, and I’m now doing bigger and more expensive projects. I am one of the only urbanist creators who gets enough views per video, to justify thousands of euros in filming, travel, video licensing, research, scriptwriting, editing, and animation costs.

So I am taking on bigger, more expensive, and riskier projects. If one of them flops, it will be an expensive hit, but I will still be ok, while most smaller creators can’t afford to take that risk (yet; we’ll get them there some day).

My video coming out on Monday (today on Nebula) was my most expensive video to date and involved at least 6 other people for scriptwriting, research, editing, animation, and production, plus a ridiculous amount of licensed footage. 💰

Other urbanist creators could have made videos on a similar topic, but none of them could have afforded the time and money that I’ve spent on this one. So I’m happy to do these projects that they can’t do, while actively promoting them, in order to get them to the level where they have the financial and creative freedom to create whatever content they want to make.

Buddy hallucinated that the Cadillac Escalade has less usable interior space when compared to a Subaru Outback. He then used this “fact” to generalize that all station wagons had more usable space than SUVs, and were therefore superior vehicles.

This would be unforgivably stupid if it was done by some tiny little YouTube channel, because it is so obviously incorrect and easily debunked. But now he’s telling us that he paid people to do research for him and work on scriptwriting, and this is what they came up with. And it wasn’t just one person, it was multiple people. A whole team.

Most of the rest of his video was about One Weird Trick that American car manufacturers use to foist SUVs on the unsuspecting public. Then he admits at the end that SUVs are the most popular automobile in Europe as well. Only, he’s too dumb to realize that he’s making an admission that his argument about CAFE regulations is clearly irrelevant, since other jurisdictions are seeing an explosion in SUV/crossover popularity.

And it wasn’t just him, the six other people he paid thousands of Euros to write this script for him and do research also never thought about this for one second. The simple and basic reality test of looking at other jurisdictions never occurred to them. Then they accidentally did that anyway, and totally ignored the implications. This is the result of thousands of dollars worth of research.

For the record, SUVs are exploding in popularity in China as well. Guess they’ve got those America specific CAFE regulation loopholes. 

This guy is an absolute clown, and we have a few more little inanities of his to get through, mostly by way of Farms user Quaawaa, with some help from others.

Not Just Bikes uses comics to “prove” that SUVs weren’t a thing before 1984, only vans. 

Above we see the 1968 Jeep Wagoner. Below we see the 1957 Harvester Trevalall. 

Turns out that people wanted the thing we refer to as SUVs long before the marketing term “Sports Utility Vehicle” existed. 

Someone found NJB whining about how Crossovers don’t have enough luggage space because they “waste” space on ground clearance. They then ran the two vehicles he mentions through the very same car size comparison tool that Jason promotes in the video and used to compare the Escalade with the Outback.

Turns out the Hyundai Kona is a tiny Crossover, little more than a glorified hatchback. The Nissan Leaf is an enormous hatchback, that is more than a foot longer. Who could have predicted that the bigger car would have more space at the back, other than everyone ever.

By the way, this is one of the reasons why “SUVs” are growing in popularity. A lot of what we would traditionally refer to as hatchbacks are Crossover SUVs. That’s why there are some “SUVs” that are smaller than large station wagons. It’s not really that there has been an enormous market shift towards gargantuan Escalades for everybody. 

Finally, the cucklet ends with some revolutionary talk.

Every movement that has ever challenged the status quo gets tone policed.

Tone policing. He’s whining about tone policing. This is what you get when you’re being truly revolutionary online. Tone policing. Which is odd, because I’m actually trying to change the status quo and I tend to get something else.

The uncensored e-revolutionaries continue being unbearable online.