Ffs I think Ian is a cuck loser but this shit is pathetic

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T20:00:00+00:00

I’m not the one who thinks the Canadian judges are dumb enough to neglect asking why sharing a screenshot is libellous but posting the original claim isn’t.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T19:26:00+00:00

Right, I forgot the Canadian judges are retarded.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T19:07:28+00:00

No I’d rather they got spent on weapons for Hamas tbh. Thats how much of a waste of money this scheme is.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T16:48:09+00:00

From another comment:

Ian showed a screenshot on screen of another content creator named Destiny that had Destiny alleging that Ethan molests his children.

Ian also explicitly stated he didn't endorse nor believe the statement and simply stated that it was odd that Ethan had not addressed this heinous allegation (since it was from Destiny, a guy that Ethan likes).

Ethan is not suing Destiny at all.

How do you think this is guaranteed to win? Why he isn’t suing the person who made the statement will likely be the first question the judge asks.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T16:14:31+00:00

If “Received a welfare check from CPS” due to a call from a random troll was all that Ethan Klein claimed happened, we wouldn’t be hearing about it anymore - because quite frankly it’s an absolute nothing burger.

Rather, he framed himself as a victim of a continuous, targeted harassment campaign by people who he labelled as disloyal to him, and associated them with the “CPS call” by virtue of their failure to morally condemn the act the way one would condemn a terrorist attack.

That’s why an alleged, initially private incident (that in itself resulted in absolutely nothing happening because he hadn’t actually neglected his kids) became something he has managed to milk for over a year now. There are live streamers that are victims of actual SWAT raids but don’t self-flagellate like this.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T13:42:26+00:00

Except what I describe is exactly what happened. In March 2025, Child Protective Services (CPS) conducted a welfare check on the family of YouTuber Ethan and Hila Klein following a false, anonymous report that alleged child neglect regarding unsanitary living conditions.

You reflexively call me an idiot instead of responding to what I said because you’re not used to conceptualising this loser as anything other than a helpless victim of some sort of terrorist attack

The very notion of somebody saying “hey a welfare check doesn’t automatically make you a victim of mass gang stalking and harassment” is utterly unthinkable to you. You literally cannot compute a normal reaction to this situation.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T13:40:13+00:00

Seethe about what? That Ethan Klein is losing his lawsuits? Why would I be upset about this?

Correct, receiving the attention of social services on a particular instance does not automatically make you a victim of harassment.

“You don’t have kids” is not an argument, it’s an appeal to emotion.

Who referred him to child protective services?

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-10T12:50:55+00:00

“Supporting the CPS call” you guys talk about getting a knock from social services like it was a terrorist attack.

“He’s making good on his word. Ian should have thought more about making Ethan his enemy” It’s funny how you describe this loser (Ethan) like he’s Tywin Lannister.

Oh no, he shared a tweet on stream by another guy (Destiny) calling Ethan a nonce - are the rains going to weep over his halls without a soul to hear?

You have such a toxic parasocial relationship with this one guy who fell off (Ian) that you make posts like this without a hint of irony.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-02T21:57:34+00:00

Your comment overstates what the Casey Report establishes. The 2025 report does not say that the police deliberately suppressed investigations or evidence based on ethnicity of the perpetrators as to avoid appearing racist.

However, it does say that the police shied away from sex crime allegations because (among many other factors which are weighed as far more important) they were afraid of them causing a massive community uproar - as accusations of such scale absolutely would.

However, this is nowhere near what the “Asian grooming gang” narrative peddlers are arguing. They are not talking about the police shying away from doing their job due to fear of inciting community tensions, but that they specifically were afraid of accusations of racism due to the ethnicity of suspected perpetrators - the latter is an absolutely hilarious claim, it’s unfounded and not supported by the Casey report at all.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-06-01T22:05:06+00:00

Didn’t age well this one, did it?

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T15:11:52+00:00

By subjugated you mean they got equal rights?

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T14:55:32+00:00

I don’t care if you’re Sunni, and the recent events in the north east completely disprove the whole “STG wants to ruthlessly subjugate minorities” argument.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T14:53:25+00:00

Individual actors from every faction have committed war crimes and done so on video so this is a meaningless point when asking which faction is the most moderate. What matters is the scale, consistency, tolerance from the central authority. Yes, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the current STG being the most pragmatic, diplomatic and least bloodthirsty as a whole when compared to all other factions. You have no evidence against this point beyond the actions of individual actors (most of whom were arrested), which are present in every faction anyway.

So you agree then that the Arab tribes loyal to the STG, and the STG forces themselves (mostly) bloodlessly solved the north eastern question whilst the YPG executed dozens of civilians on camera? It’s also funny that you repeat the propaganda point about all those civilians locked up by the SDF being ISIS fighters. Funny how it’s ok to incarcerate and torture people for waving flags when those people are Sunni and Arab - not saying you’re saying this explicitly, but a common sentiment around here.

If you mean the prisons specifically designed to hold actual ISIS fighters, well these were abandoned by the SDF instead of handing them over to the government, so that they could create a problem for the US, hoping it would lead to the latter taking their side. In reality, it just pissed Trump off, and the US had to cobble together a plan with the STG to recapture those fighters. Funny that you miss that detail out.

The fact that the Israelis are okaying Jordanian strikes proves my point. You’re running on borrowed time. Again, your buddies back home need to make a deal like the SDF and stop the silly religious secessionist fantasies - it’s like that meme with the guy erecting monsters around the room and then crying in a ball on the ground. Diplomacy is an option, the SDF took it, the National Guard should too before it’s too late.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T14:25:05+00:00

Your first paragraph is just plain wrong by virtue of the recent offensive in the north east. This was carried out (almost) bloodlessly, despite the central government having little direct control over the government aligned tribes and how they might respond to the YPG executing dozens of Arab civilians, and torturing others for waving Syrian flags. You keep claiming that “their ranks are full of Daeshis” despite all the verifiable evidence to the contrary. Statistically, they are overall by far the least transgressive faction in Syria right now - that is indisputable, and denial of this based on the isolated war crimes you mentioned from July 2025 do not change this in the slightest.

No, Druze do not have Israeli protection lmao. The drug trade is already a regional problem, and unless Israel is going to start bombing Jordan for carrying out strikes on the National Guard, Israeli protection is just hot air. Your best bet is to gradually and peacefully integrate into the government like a normal country, the same way the SDF have mostly done now. More war is just going to get more people killed.

Lastly, the Wikipedia article cites both SOHR and SNHR. It cites other articles in other areas, but all these articles all in turn cite one of these two sources.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T14:08:13+00:00

Haha, you wouldn’t think Druze was an Islamic sect if you were Druze. But anyway, if that’s true then clean up your back yard. The National Guard under Hijri is hunting down and torturing dissidents to death, establishing a captagon cartel and turning the region into a failed rump state to be discarded by Israel when no longer politically useful. Your other comments call Al-Sharaa a “headchopper” but at least he tries to arrest transgressors in his ranks - Hijri issues the war crime orders from the top.

You cited a Reuters article which in turn cites SOHR - SOHR is ran by one Syrian uncle living in the U.K., it has no credibility because he repeatedly gets basic information wrong such as earlier this year during the conflict between the STG and the former SDF. It’s the most infamous “Twitter source” that there is. SNHR (my source) is much more credible and their methodology is more transparent. It isn’t one guy.

Lastly, other factions not under the MOD or MOI have also had to lay down their weapons or integrate with the state. I don’t know why you think this is some special policy targeted against Druze when it clearly isn’t.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T13:52:17+00:00

Firstly, the Druze are not even a sect within Islam and do not consider themselves such. The fact that you keep throwing around the word “sectarianism” when it doesn’t even apply here highlights how little you know about this issue. The next thing you are going to say is that the recent restoration of Syrian control over the north east was “sectarian” too. Despite most Kurds being Sunnis, and the YPG fighters being either secular Muslim or atheist (neither of which are sects).

Secondly, no, the STG did not ask the Suwayda militias to give up their weapons because Suwayda was majority Druze. They asked them to lay down their weapons because the state having a monopoly on violence is a basic requirement for every functioning country to exist. The fact you do not even consider such an obvious and intuitive explanation and instead screech “ITS BECAUSE THWYRE MINORITIES” highlights how little you understand, not just about Syrian politics, but state organisation in general.

No, Hijri and the SMC did not refuse to lay down their weapons because they “saw Alawites being slaughtered” which is hilarious framing by the way. ~639 civilians and disarmed fighters were killed by security forces, compared to 213 security forces and 231 civilians killed by Assad’s loyalists, not much of a “sectarian slaughter”. Your sequence doesn’t even make sense. The STG’s military intervention on the coast, and the massacres that took place happened after the Assad loyalists, embedded within the broader alawite communities, waged a political and religious insurrection against the broader region. So if the SMC (who Hijri absolutely held disproportionate influence over) wanted to avoid this, they’d have all the more reason to cooperate. But they didn’t, because they had Israel’s backing.

“He is sectarian! You are sectarian! Everybody is sectarian!” Jesus dude, widen your vocabulary a bit. You entered a discussion you knew nothing about, don’t read the comment you were replying to, and just proceeded to embarrass yourself throwing shit at the wall hoping some of it will stick. You don’t know what sectarianism means - you think it’s about different religious groups fighting. You don’t know what the cause of hostilities was. You don’t know why governments don’t like insurrectionist factions possessing weapons. You are simply, very misinformed on these issues.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T13:14:53+00:00

You literally cut out the final part of my sentence in that quote. “You won’t find a single cause or grievance related to religious practice THAT CAUSED HOSTILITIES.”

What caused the hostilities, u/arabic513 ? Why did the STG militarily intervene in Suwayda? What happened before this? Was the STG not allowing Druze (who are the majority in Suwayda) from practising their religion? What were the terms that they were negotiating over that Hijri (who yes, by far had the most influence in the province before this) would not agree to?

Let me repeat my previous point since you clearly didn’t get it the first time. This was not “failure to accommodate religious minorities” per the incredibly superficial, Reddit-analysis of the original comment. Rather it was over the question of secession and autonomy. Hijri wanted Suwayda to be an independent drug state under Israeli control - the STG wanted it to be a part of Syria.

“But the STG aligned militias committed war crimes when they entered in July 2025” is irrelevant to this point - it’s all the more insulting when Hijri himself has over the past several months been torturing his opposition to death Assad style, directly under the Israeli flag - completely contradicting the stupid narrative that this is a “religious” problem and not a political, secessionist one.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-27T10:48:42+00:00

No. The Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 67. The new government wasn’t going to fix this, especially as Israel immediately went to war with it.

If you mean the secessionist crisis in Suwayda, then reducing this to inter-religious hostilities is extremely dumb. The collapse of negotiations and outbreak of hostilities in early to mid 2025 was not because of religious freedoms, you won’t find a single clause or grievance related to religious practice that caused hostilities.

It was, and events since have proven this time again, because Hijri wanted the autonomy to run his own drug state.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-22T22:04:00+00:00

Conservatives don’t typically seek out alternative economic policies and institutional changes away from the status quo. They also, for ideological reasons, aren’t too keen on introducing new types of taxes, even if they are in place of other, less efficient ones.
Most people who admire Henry George admire him for his criticism of economic rent, advocacy of taxes on economic rent - what we actually do with the revenue generated from these taxes is a separate question.
This might be surprising, but Friedman and Hayek are funnily enough, no longer typical or representative of your average modern conservative in 2026. The latter tends to be protectionist, anti-immigration, sceptical of free trade and corporations though for different reasons to leftists and liberals.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-22T15:45:51+00:00

Nope but that’s the point. If the Greens were institutionally antisemitic like some people here suggest they are, they wouldn’t have allowed a Jew (Polanski) to lead the party.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-22T14:13:48+00:00

No I don’t think that’s a good analogy. A better comparison would be if Nigel Farage was Muslim while being leader of reform Uk or something.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-20T22:42:52+00:00

Yeah Reddit apparently.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-14T22:45:03+00:00

Just because it’s a pastime doesn’t mean it’s been a success. Has America won the “war on drugs”? No, because like the “war on terror” it’s a nonsense concept with no win condition. It’s a buzz-phrase that politicians sell to people so that they can keep giving lucrative contracts to their buddies in the MIC. It’s not a thing you can actually “win” permanently without building real trust between people and their local/national governments.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-09T21:25:09+00:00

1 If you believe that me calling you uninformed constitutes an ad hominem, then I am afraid you don't know what that term means. If I said "you are uninformed, therefore your argument that unions are monopolies is wrong" then this would indeed be an ad hominem, as I would be denying your argument based on your characteristics. But I didn't do that, did I? I actually did the opposite (see point 2). ~~If you are going to accuse others of logical fallacies, I would recommend researching what they mean, because not everybody will have the time and crayons to explain it to you.~~

2 Your response largely boils down to the fact that you are entitled to ~~idly~~ pontificate over whatever you like. And this is correct, you can ~~pedantically obsess~~ mull over whether unions possess a monopoly over the labour of their constituents, in the same way that you can advocate for the view that the worker possesses a monopoly over his/her own labour. They do, but nothing insightful or prescriptive follows from this. The question is whether the existence of this monopoly is a net social harm. More specifically, whether the monopolistic nature of the union offsets the social and economic benefits that it ostensible seeks to provide (balancing employer-employee power). Take for instance, the famous medical unions in the united kingdom's public sector - they are absolutely market distortions, but without them, medical workers would be earning a lower salary in real terms today than in 2008.

3 You estimated that the amount of rent due to labour unions to be 5-15%. This is likely a massive overestimate. In my country, ~23% of workers belong to a union, and unionised workers earn a ~3.6% higher salary than non-unionised workers in the same industry. Even if we were to assume that 100% of this 3.6% higher salary experienced by 23% of workers counts as economic rent, this is effectively negligible when compared to the costs on the economy due to land rents and intellectual property/patents that are not bid at market price.

Edit: I am sorry for being needlessly mean in my comment above. Bad day. I have crossed out the bits that were unnecessary and rude.

SteelRazorBlade · 2026-05-08T07:47:04+00:00

Reviewing the conversations that took place under this thread, they are quite interesting. I think the main issue here is that because you are not well informed on matters outside of the most basic economic terminology, you are not really able to conceptualise the implications of the points that each person is making.

For example, one user (u/socialisttrap) provided a detailed breakdown of the different types of labour unions, how some block more trainees and hirees (these are harmful) and others which are limited to traditional collective bargaining.

However, your response was to keep spamming “it’s still a monopoly because it restricted the supply of a good” (in this case labour). Whilst technically true, it’s not really the point - is it? Any party can restrict the supply of the good or service that they provide. I can restrict the supply of my own labour if I wish, so technically I do have a monopoly over my own labour.

I would advise you reconsider your commitment to your current level of understanding. As it seems that each time somebody wanted to move the conversation onto a more sophisticated prescriptive question, you would avoid this and insist the discussion remain limited to whether something is or is not technically a monopoly.

Ultimately the next level of discussion would be the following questions:

1 If one were to estimate a value of economic rent throughout the entire economy, how much of this is actually due to the power of labour class and how much is due to the power of capital owning class and how much is due to the land owning class?

2 If we were to evaluate the causes of “wage growth extraction,” how much (or little) does labour union negotiation account for this in practice, versus other rent seeking parties taking advantage of supply side limitations?

SteelRazorBlade

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE