AndyGHK
@andyghk.leftis.best
Accessibly Weird; Inaccessibly Pretty. Beat the “Rude” allegations. Shrimplink-Enabled.
Lmao yeah, you’re embarrassed. Not just embarrassed, embawwased. Because now you’re trying to rehash the thread, which anyone can read in plain English—well, maybe aside from you, given how it’s gone for you so far—and see just how you embawwassed yourself!
Look at yourself, dawg—why respect you?
Look at yourself, dawg—why respect you?
December 23, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Lmao yeah, you’re embarrassed. Not just embarrassed, embawwased. Because now you’re trying to rehash the thread, which anyone can read in plain English—well, maybe aside from you, given how it’s gone for you so far—and see just how you embawwassed yourself!
Look at yourself, dawg—why respect you?
Look at yourself, dawg—why respect you?
That’s because it is and we shouldn’t be.
Here’s Will Stancil publicly posting about “drop-kicking” a woman for “coordinating abuse” towards him—a woman who has had him blocked on this platform for several weeks, btw!—by pointing out the flaws in his takes. He is obsessed with her, and not emulable
Here’s Will Stancil publicly posting about “drop-kicking” a woman for “coordinating abuse” towards him—a woman who has had him blocked on this platform for several weeks, btw!—by pointing out the flaws in his takes. He is obsessed with her, and not emulable
December 21, 2025 at 10:01 PM
That’s because it is and we shouldn’t be.
Here’s Will Stancil publicly posting about “drop-kicking” a woman for “coordinating abuse” towards him—a woman who has had him blocked on this platform for several weeks, btw!—by pointing out the flaws in his takes. He is obsessed with her, and not emulable
Here’s Will Stancil publicly posting about “drop-kicking” a woman for “coordinating abuse” towards him—a woman who has had him blocked on this platform for several weeks, btw!—by pointing out the flaws in his takes. He is obsessed with her, and not emulable
He said what he did say to rebut someone saying the economy was bad because homelessness was increasing. It is, even without considering asylees, so that is misleading.
Migrants DO in many cases have arrangements, also, and they’re just cynically bussed away from them.
Here’s what he actually said
Migrants DO in many cases have arrangements, also, and they’re just cynically bussed away from them.
Here’s what he actually said
December 21, 2025 at 9:47 PM
He said what he did say to rebut someone saying the economy was bad because homelessness was increasing. It is, even without considering asylees, so that is misleading.
Migrants DO in many cases have arrangements, also, and they’re just cynically bussed away from them.
Here’s what he actually said
Migrants DO in many cases have arrangements, also, and they’re just cynically bussed away from them.
Here’s what he actually said
No, it isn’t factually correct; that’s why he walks it back here, saying actually the homeless count increased because people were bussed away to places they don’t have support systems—not because they lack them incidentally or because they didn’t make arrangements
December 21, 2025 at 7:59 PM
No, it isn’t factually correct; that’s why he walks it back here, saying actually the homeless count increased because people were bussed away to places they don’t have support systems—not because they lack them incidentally or because they didn’t make arrangements
Lmao MATT HIMSELF SAID IT dude, he said the reason homelessness count is increasing is because of the bussing to places they don’t have support systems! And good riddance lmao, I don’t need a bunch of smug no-nothings in my inbox and them blocking me doesn’t make them right lol
December 21, 2025 at 7:04 PM
Lmao MATT HIMSELF SAID IT dude, he said the reason homelessness count is increasing is because of the bussing to places they don’t have support systems! And good riddance lmao, I don’t need a bunch of smug no-nothings in my inbox and them blocking me doesn’t make them right lol
Then why is Matt saying the homeless count increased because of the bussing—the bussing away from support systems, by the way!—and NOT because of the “they didnt set up housing”?
He’s walking it back and you don’t have to defend it!
He’s walking it back and you don’t have to defend it!
December 21, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Then why is Matt saying the homeless count increased because of the bussing—the bussing away from support systems, by the way!—and NOT because of the “they didnt set up housing”?
He’s walking it back and you don’t have to defend it!
He’s walking it back and you don’t have to defend it!
Then why did Matt feel the need to back away from the former point and specify the latter in a mutually exclusive way?
Is it “people coming without setting up housing” that increases homeless count? Or is it “people bussed to a city where they don’t have a support system” that increases it?
Is it “people coming without setting up housing” that increases homeless count? Or is it “people bussed to a city where they don’t have a support system” that increases it?
December 21, 2025 at 6:50 PM
Then why did Matt feel the need to back away from the former point and specify the latter in a mutually exclusive way?
Is it “people coming without setting up housing” that increases homeless count? Or is it “people bussed to a city where they don’t have a support system” that increases it?
Is it “people coming without setting up housing” that increases homeless count? Or is it “people bussed to a city where they don’t have a support system” that increases it?
It’s racist and misleading to say that’s on the immigrants and not on Texas for lying to them tho, and that’s also not complicated!
December 21, 2025 at 6:45 PM
It’s racist and misleading to say that’s on the immigrants and not on Texas for lying to them tho, and that’s also not complicated!
How about that Matt himself reversed fucking course on the idea that it was “lack of planning”?
If people are bussed AWAY from support systems, that means DESPITE their plans, they are homeless—not BECAUSE of their LACK OF plans!
If people are bussed AWAY from support systems, that means DESPITE their plans, they are homeless—not BECAUSE of their LACK OF plans!
December 21, 2025 at 6:34 PM
How about that Matt himself reversed fucking course on the idea that it was “lack of planning”?
If people are bussed AWAY from support systems, that means DESPITE their plans, they are homeless—not BECAUSE of their LACK OF plans!
If people are bussed AWAY from support systems, that means DESPITE their plans, they are homeless—not BECAUSE of their LACK OF plans!
He is actually and Matt created the argument in the chat. He’s since realized it’s a bad look and has reversed course, saying actually it’s the people bussing them’s fault, dw:
December 21, 2025 at 6:31 PM
He is actually and Matt created the argument in the chat. He’s since realized it’s a bad look and has reversed course, saying actually it’s the people bussing them’s fault, dw:
No, it fucking isn’t!! Not even MATT HIMSELF claims that anymore!
December 21, 2025 at 6:20 PM
No, it fucking isn’t!! Not even MATT HIMSELF claims that anymore!
Here, let me help:
“Immigrants are the primary cause of homelessness increasing” -> homelessness increased primarily bc of immigration
“Immigrants come here and use shelters and don’t have plans for housing” -> (lots of people came to the US without setting up housing)
Please, help explain!
“Immigrants are the primary cause of homelessness increasing” -> homelessness increased primarily bc of immigration
“Immigrants come here and use shelters and don’t have plans for housing” -> (lots of people came to the US without setting up housing)
Please, help explain!
December 21, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Here, let me help:
“Immigrants are the primary cause of homelessness increasing” -> homelessness increased primarily bc of immigration
“Immigrants come here and use shelters and don’t have plans for housing” -> (lots of people came to the US without setting up housing)
Please, help explain!
“Immigrants are the primary cause of homelessness increasing” -> homelessness increased primarily bc of immigration
“Immigrants come here and use shelters and don’t have plans for housing” -> (lots of people came to the US without setting up housing)
Please, help explain!
Lmao no, I don’t struggle with complex ideas. It seems you do, though, because you haven’t answered my question.
Was Matt right, before, when he said immigrants were primarily causing the homeless increase because they don’t plan?
Or was he wrong, and it’s say Abbott’s fault, forcing them out?
Was Matt right, before, when he said immigrants were primarily causing the homeless increase because they don’t plan?
Or was he wrong, and it’s say Abbott’s fault, forcing them out?
December 21, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Lmao no, I don’t struggle with complex ideas. It seems you do, though, because you haven’t answered my question.
Was Matt right, before, when he said immigrants were primarily causing the homeless increase because they don’t plan?
Or was he wrong, and it’s say Abbott’s fault, forcing them out?
Was Matt right, before, when he said immigrants were primarily causing the homeless increase because they don’t plan?
Or was he wrong, and it’s say Abbott’s fault, forcing them out?
It’s bogus as 1). Matt has walked it back, for one thing, 2). He appealed to *asylum seekers using asylum shelters* as justifying his “increase in homelessness (no plan)” point, when use of shelters confers there WAS a plan, and 3). Because it centers immigrants as the cause of their economic issues
December 21, 2025 at 5:27 PM
It’s bogus as 1). Matt has walked it back, for one thing, 2). He appealed to *asylum seekers using asylum shelters* as justifying his “increase in homelessness (no plan)” point, when use of shelters confers there WAS a plan, and 3). Because it centers immigrants as the cause of their economic issues
His counting is incorrect, for one thing, because asylum seekers using asylum shelters (the source he keeps appealing to) is not “immigrants increasing homelessness due to not having a place before coming”, and he’s already backed off of that (see below).
December 21, 2025 at 5:07 PM
His counting is incorrect, for one thing, because asylum seekers using asylum shelters (the source he keeps appealing to) is not “immigrants increasing homelessness due to not having a place before coming”, and he’s already backed off of that (see below).
Has this thread gone the way you thought it would for you
Maybe you should, I dunno, deign to explain *why* I should take the L? And not him, for posting something he doesn’t even stand by anymore?
Maybe you should, I dunno, deign to explain *why* I should take the L? And not him, for posting something he doesn’t even stand by anymore?
December 21, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Has this thread gone the way you thought it would for you
Maybe you should, I dunno, deign to explain *why* I should take the L? And not him, for posting something he doesn’t even stand by anymore?
Maybe you should, I dunno, deign to explain *why* I should take the L? And not him, for posting something he doesn’t even stand by anymore?
Sorry how is it jumping to a conclusion to see “immigrants are the primary drivers of homelessness (because they come here without plans for housing)” as racist drivel, when he himself doesn’t even stand by that position when fucking challenged
Almost like immigrants aren’t “driving homelessness”
Almost like immigrants aren’t “driving homelessness”
December 21, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Sorry how is it jumping to a conclusion to see “immigrants are the primary drivers of homelessness (because they come here without plans for housing)” as racist drivel, when he himself doesn’t even stand by that position when fucking challenged
Almost like immigrants aren’t “driving homelessness”
Almost like immigrants aren’t “driving homelessness”
What was that about my self-righteousness? Who do you think you are again?
December 19, 2025 at 2:25 AM
What was that about my self-righteousness? Who do you think you are again?
This is:
• Sexist
• Racist
• Slut-Shaming
By proxy.
“She can’t be president because she’s a woman” ->
“she can’t be president because people won’t vote for a woman” ->
“of course she lost, she can’t be president, people won’t vote for a woman”->
“it’s not HER fault she lost, she’s a woman!”
• Sexist
• Racist
• Slut-Shaming
By proxy.
“She can’t be president because she’s a woman” ->
“she can’t be president because people won’t vote for a woman” ->
“of course she lost, she can’t be president, people won’t vote for a woman”->
“it’s not HER fault she lost, she’s a woman!”
December 19, 2025 at 1:28 AM
This is:
• Sexist
• Racist
• Slut-Shaming
By proxy.
“She can’t be president because she’s a woman” ->
“she can’t be president because people won’t vote for a woman” ->
“of course she lost, she can’t be president, people won’t vote for a woman”->
“it’s not HER fault she lost, she’s a woman!”
• Sexist
• Racist
• Slut-Shaming
By proxy.
“She can’t be president because she’s a woman” ->
“she can’t be president because people won’t vote for a woman” ->
“of course she lost, she can’t be president, people won’t vote for a woman”->
“it’s not HER fault she lost, she’s a woman!”
Yeah dude I’m totally gonna trust a source like this about the veracity of their study on the “strengths and challenges” of the thing they literally sell.
YOU HAVE BOUGHT *MARKETING*
YOU HAVE BOUGHT *MARKETING*
December 12, 2025 at 2:10 AM
Yeah dude I’m totally gonna trust a source like this about the veracity of their study on the “strengths and challenges” of the thing they literally sell.
YOU HAVE BOUGHT *MARKETING*
YOU HAVE BOUGHT *MARKETING*
AND THEN THE REVOLUTION HAPPENED?
THE ONE
FOUNDED ON
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST IDEALS?
Like what the fuck point do you think you’re making??
THE ONE
FOUNDED ON
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST IDEALS?
Like what the fuck point do you think you’re making??
![Russian libertarian socialists, including anarchists, populists and left socialist-revolutionaries, led the opposition to the Tsarist autocracy throughout the late-19th century. 331 They created a network of both clandestine and legal
organisations throughout Russia, with the aim of overthrowing the Russian nobility and bringing land under the common ownership of the mir. Their agitation for land reform in the Russian countryside culminated with the establishment of rural soviets during the
1905 Revolution. (34]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5s53zjxdelcvmw6tq7lgqm4m/bafkreid54s5yjqsrk7ucatvg5natu7ferh2zftcw5a3hbtva2l6dnxfrje@jpeg)
December 11, 2025 at 5:41 PM
AND THEN THE REVOLUTION HAPPENED?
THE ONE
FOUNDED ON
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST IDEALS?
Like what the fuck point do you think you’re making??
THE ONE
FOUNDED ON
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST IDEALS?
Like what the fuck point do you think you’re making??