/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>56320269
/jp/ did a good job controlling misuse of quotes for like a decade, until vtubers I guess

>>49276438
>he

>>45039903

>>17330550
>oh noooo I got called out so I will call you a redditor, gottem ha ha
ctrl+f it yourself if you want newfag. I'm done spoon feeding you

>>12129705
Oh no anon, insult away - but making idiotic comments to flex on your jargon is the most leddit thing there is. You weren't calling someone a newfag as much as you were trying to flex, so that was cringe.
Council brought in an influx of newfags. You don't have to spoon feed, so call him a newfag and move on or don't comment anything. Leaving comments like "OMG, how new?! LAWL! just look it up" is pretty mentally hadicapable.

>>10067595
throwing a lot of accusations there buddy
>You're basically just complaining that she didn't act the way you wanted her to at this point.
I wasn't complaining
>You're not happy that she picked the considerate options in the first game and the inconsiderate options in the second game and you act like her picking the inconsiderate options in the second game doesn't count.
I cited an example to make a point. What I like/don't like about the video does not factor in it. I didn't even mention my thoughts on it. Nice strawman though
>If anything that she was supposed to be considerate in the first game and often ended up being inconsiderate while having the opposite happen in the second game was far more entertaining and chaotic than rigidly sticking to one or the other.
Notice how this does not relate to the conversation whatsoever? It's because you made a strawman about opinions about the video, and proceeded to 360 noscope it.

I'm gonna ignore you now, this is getting retarded.

>>9374076
>you misinterpreted something to create the false equivalency
that's....not what the strawman fallacy is. A false equivalency doesn't need to be based on anything. That's what makes it false.... Even then, it's not a false equivalency if you look at it in terms of difference in cultures. Since the logic is
>A is offended by B,
>C doesn't know about B
>C says B

N and R can fall under this chain. You have to provide proof C knows about B to call it a false equivalence.

This isn't leddit, so I'm just gonna call you a faggot and call it a day.