EXCLUSIVE: Trump has told his inner circle, including members of his Cabinet, that Elon Musk will soon be stepping back from his current role as governing partner, ubiquitous cheerleader and Washington hatchet man.

Read @rachaelmbade's full scoop: https://t.co/olM5jKUKAX pic.twitter.com/8TAcfU0SiV

— POLITICO (@politico) April 2, 2025

Who could have guessed making an incredibly unlikeable sperg a very prominent public-facing part of your team wouldn't be a great strategy?

Donald Trump has told his inner circle, including members of his Cabinet, that Elon Musk will be stepping back in the coming weeks from his current role as governing partner, ubiquitous cheerleader and Washington hatchet man.

The president remains pleased with Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency initiative but both men have decided in recent days that it will soon be time for Musk to return to his businesses and take on a supporting role, according to three Trump insiders who were granted anonymity to describe the evolving relationship.

Musk's looming retreat comes as some Trump administration insiders and many outside allies have become frustrated with his unpredictability and increasingly view the billionaire as a political liability, a dynamic that was thrown into stark relief Tuesday when a conservative judge Musk vocally supported lost his bid for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat by 10 points.

It also represents a stark shift in the Trump-Musk relationship from a month ago, when White House officials and allies were predicting Musk was "here to stay" and that Trump would find a way to blow past the 130-day time limit.

One senior administration official said Musk is likely to retain an informal role as an adviser and continue to be an occasional face around the White House grounds. Another cautioned that anyone who thinks Musk is going to disappear entirely from Trump's orbit is "fooling themselves."

The transition, the insiders said, is likely to correspond to the end of Musk's time as a "special government employee," a special status that temporarily exempts him from some ethics and conflict-of-interest rules. That 130-day period is expected to expire in late May or early June.

https://www.reddit.com/r/breakingbad/s/JYMPftwENc

Obviously bait but redditors still conbradulate the new queen

Beacuse... what if they really are trans... and i just denied them their identity.... i would be... a BIGOT.

Also thread locked cus of course

Also...

https://www.reddit.com/r/breakingbad/s/GCam1eTGFX

The stock market isn't the economy

Liberals are so dumb. https://t.co/7EOgjshEiM

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) March 9, 2025

He assumed that this effeminate sounding mutt in a man bun was a lib (he is arguing that federal agencies get tax cuts for hiring black people).

More rightoids who are supporting a gigalib over their own r-slurred side:

That look you get when you know you have to debate a brainless witless social justice warrior clown whose IQ is mid 50's. pic.twitter.com/y1kT0nbtiS

— Tisha Areo Maris (@TishaAreoLadle) March 9, 2025

I get why people think he's a conservative lmao he looks the least soy out of all of them.

If you don’t know how government agencies are funded, maybe you shouldn’t get to vote.

— Valkyries for women🇺🇸 (@valkyriesrwomen) March 9, 2025

And they vote
🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

— F106lady (@F106lady) March 10, 2025

If you only let 110+ iq people vote, we'd probably have a dem supermajority lol. Like yeah they lose a chunk of the black vote (they barely vote anyways) but the catturd crowd is probably a larger portion of the R electorate.

It just doesn't add up. In terms of structured beliefs. If you support Donald Trump, do you support both the January 6th protests and the revocation of immigrant status from those involved in the Columbia protests? Is protesting in America hating America? Or only when people you disagree with do it. Also, the "illegal" activity at said protest is explained here: https://thegrayzone.com/2024/05/02/columbia-crackdown-university-nypd/. I don't expect trump supporters to actually read this article, so I certainly won't describe its contents.

.@realDonaldTrump should reverse the tariffs on @Israel because Israel eliminated their own tariffs prior to the today’s tariff announcement. Trump should incentivize the behavior he wants, not punish it. https://t.co/P1K9ivDR9Z

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 3, 2025

4.0 GPA
1600 SAT
35 ACT
Junior IMO gold medalist

And in spite of that? Denied from every single Ivy League school.

It makes no sense. My head is spinning.

And for those of you who love to say “it’s because of the essay”, here’s mine. Tell me how I could have done any better. pic.twitter.com/vrLKhovXRI

— Lee Huang (@allgarbled) April 2, 2025

Some reactions:

Mike Lee: "DEI intolerance and racism. Not very inclusive"

UATX takes the opportunity to encourage him to apply to their school instead

Commenters give him helpful essay advice, noting that starting with a dictionary definition of "collage" might be unwise

Others lecture him for his arrogance

Some provide thoughtful tips on metaphor usage

One enterprising commenter hunts through Math Olympiad records and third-grade math test scores to find whether this "Lee Huang" is as impressive as he claims he is

Even Grok was moved by his story

https://old.reddit.com/r/HiTMAN/comments/1jpvgm5/allegations_against_van_damme_now_these_celebrity/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MortalKombat/comments/1jpwa8m/that_jeanclaude_van_damme_skin_is_going_to_hit/

https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1jpvfjb/jeanclaude_van_damme_accused_of_having_sexual/

https://old.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/1jpt1un/jeanclaude_van_damme_accused_of_having_sexual/

https://old.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1jpt2q4/jeanclaude_van_damme_accused_of_having_sexual/

https://old.reddit.com/r/HollywoodReceipts/comments/1jptggl/jeanclaude_van_damme_accused_of_having_sexual/

https://old.reddit.com/r/ActionBoyz/comments/1jpwsek/jeanclaude_van_damme_accused_of_having_sexual/

That's a whole other level of over when Kurzgesagt is saying it is over for your country with no optimism even at the end of the video.

Redditor kicks the YSK wasp nest and stirs up some ultimately tedious shenanigans.

Wow. Did you just learn about fallacies mister 16 year old at a 7th grade level?

No, but we are all tripped up by them sometimes and it's good to be reminded of them.

And there may be younger people on reddit learning this for the first time.

Try to relax a little, dude

Woah, are you attacking his frustration? Way to ad hominem there

The difference here is that I addressed his argument first, before also suggesting he takes a chill pill.

I didn't say something like, "Wow. You're overreacting. Go get your hysteria under control, and maybe you'll see that I'm right." Which is another example of an ad hominem that uses someone's emotional state as the reason for denying their point.

And you should know that often times just spewing "thats [insert logical fallacy we learned in 10th grade]" isnt going to help you win an argument.

100% correct. Avoiding potholes doesn't get you from point A to point B. You still have to drive the car.

You should still try to avoid potholes while driving though.

Ok, but in a real-life scenario, if you're debating with someone, you're not just trying to get from Point A to Point B. You're trying to bring this other person along with you to Point B as well.

And if they're running into potholes and your response is just, "You're running into potholes," you're never going to get them to where you want them to be.

There's a reason the person keeps hitting potholes (emotions, misunderstanding your argument, etc.), and if your goal is actually to convince them of something, then you have to figure out what's causing them to hit the potholes, not just dismissively telling them they're hitting potholes, which is probably just going to cause them to hit even more potholes.

That being said, everything I just said goes out the window if you're arguing with some rando on the internet. Then, it's a waste of time trying to get any sort of collaboration.

Knowing about what an Ad Hominem is doesn't mean you can "Gotcha" your opponent. The reason why remembering logical fallacies helps you is that it lets you avoid being dragged down or distracted by them.

You're not going to point and say "That is a pothole" while driving, but knowing what they look like and keeping an eye out for them lets you avoid them.

And this is useful so you can be the turd that points out logical fallacies in the middle of an argument

You seem angry, so I'll ignore that.

im guessing you're trying to be clever here but this isnt ad hominem either

Oh? What is it then?

there's no one term to describe somebody who has no interest in faithfully having an argument. it's not an ad hominem "fallacy" unless you are trying to use it to support your side in an argument. if you're just calling somebody an idiot because you've had enough trying to argue with them, it IS NOT AD HOMINEM.

for example: you are an idiot - this is an insult i'm using to express how exhausting and poor your rhetoric is, but isnt an argument, therefore is not ad hominem. i have insulted you, but have not engaged in the ad hominem fallacy.

and for your consideration, you don't need to have a reason to not continue having an argument with dishonest people. if someone dismisses you or insults you, they are not interested in the outcome of your discussion and pointing to a universal umbrella 'fallacy' that you can 'prove' they used to allow you to 'win' doesnt actually change the fact that you're arguing with a brick wall. you didn't 'win' the argument because somebody insulted you or engaged in dishonest tactics, you just wasted your time.

You have poor manners and lack emotional control, so your arguments must be wrong; whoever lacks emotional control must also lack logic. If you're angry and rude, you must be blinded by rage, and your argument isn't reliable.

Who would listen to someone so angry, who must be wrong all the time? I'd rather listen to someone calm who can form logical arguments. Have a nice day! :)

you're more obsessed with 'winning' and being right than learning anything or discovering the world or expanding your perspective, which is why you're an idiot.

Listen dude, it's useful to know logical fallacies and cognitive biases outside of a debate room floor, because not only do our opponents make them, which can trip us up, but we make them ourselves all the time.

Knowing common logical pitfalls isn't about saying "gatcha" to other people, but about communicating well. Being the best that we can be.

I really don't get where all this hostility is coming from.

Here is an example-free reiteration of my OP:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument. An emotional state is a personal trait.

You can insult me all you like, but I'm working off of citable sources. If you have a problem with that, wikipedia has an edit request feature; so take it up with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

everything that opposes you has to rise to hostility when you're this stubborn and short-sighted. you made a 'you should know' on a topic you clearly misunderstand and are disagreeing with the dozens of people who are trying to correct you. you spent 5 seconds learning something and immediately jumped onto social media to pat yourself on the back for knowing something that others don't, and are in denial that you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Take it up with wikipedia, dude.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber."

this isn't something that can be proven true or false.

op ironically demonstrates a misunderstanding of ad hominem while attempting to clarify ad hominem.

"Smoking feels good, so I'm putting my baby inside a cocktail smoking chamber [because that will make the baby feel good]."

Sorry I wasn't more clear with the implications, dude. Does it make more sense now!

not really. feeling good is subjective, it's an opinion. saying "no, it's bad for you," doesn't even refute that it feels good. you've tangled your example from the start. it's not a logical proof.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

There is a ton of evidence showing the negative effects of tobacco smoke. If you think that someone saying "Don't put the baby in a smoking chamber, that is terrible for its health." Is not a logical way to refute "This will make the baby feel good," you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

I'm going to step away from your disingenuous pedantry.

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy. I'll use it to respond to other comments in this thread.

Telling someone not to put a baby in a smoking chamber implies that any good feelings the tobacco smoke may induce would be vastly outweighed by the baby being harmed by the smoke.

my dude, that's not how a logical argument works. that's still an option because it cannot be proven true or false. it's certainly a reasonable opinion, but there's no study that feeling good is objectively better than a longer life expectancy.

you're being pedantic in the extreme, or are suffering from some sort of tunnel vision, trying to troll, or all three.

false dichotomy, i could be right and you have merely mistaken how logical arguments are constructed for "pedantry."

Actually, thank you for the excellent example of a Straw Man fallacy.

you are a clown. you are not wrong because you are a clown. you are just both wrong and a clown. 🤡

Okay, I'm blocking you now. Try to pay attention in class tomorrow.

Attacks your frustration? Not sure if English is your primary language but an ad hominem is when someone attacks you in a personal way unrelated to the argument at hand.

For example if Trump and Biden are arguing politically about the recent tariffs and their effects on the economy. Biden, being against these tariffs says it's a terrible idea because Trump is a racist sexist nazi.

That did not address any information about the tariffs and the economy. It was an attack on his character and is considered an ad hominem fallacy.

You sound angry. I don't have to listen to angry people. Learn to control your emotions, and maybe you'll see sense.

lol I'm not angry at all. I gave a very relevant example of an ad hominem fallacy I see commonly on Reddit. Nothing I said shows a loss of control over my emotions. You're reaching and making assumptions

Person A hasn't taken any action yet presumably. The example was worded poorly. We're talking about logical reasoning in arguments not reacting to real world scenarios.

Point is I can just say "are you insane?" to anything. Asking "are you insane" doesn't refute a point using logical reasoning. When you say it you are making a point to question the soundness of mind of the person you are debating to devalue their argument not on its merits (or lacketherof) but rather the quality of their character or personhood. Ad hominem, Latin for "against the man."

You sound angry, like someone who can't control their emotions. I don't need to listen to you.

lol

You're not conveying any substantive new information here. You're just designating the behaviour under a provocative term. Such a midwit post.

Hey, that's okay. As you can see in this thread, a lot of people seem not to know about ad hominem attacks, especially if said fallacies are based on attacking an opponents emotional state.

Try not to fall into the Curse of Knowledge cognitive bias (believing everyone else should already know information that you know).

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/management/curse-of-knowledge

Uh, no. More like "You don't know what you're talking about because you're a ladygarden."

Here is an example-free reiteration of my claim:

By definition, an Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the attributes or traits of a person instead of their argument.

An emotional state is a personal trait.

Here is the easiest-to-access source I used (out of several). I understand that wikipedia is easily refuted, so feel free to dive into the sources the article sites, or to submit an edit request to wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact", to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong – without ever addressing the point of the debate.

this is the most redditor post I've ever seen

That makes sense, since we are both on Reddit.

Sorry if this offends you, but you're a Redditor too.

Redditors don't know what an ad hominem or tu quoque fallacy are, and refuse to take the ten seconds to look up what they are. Why are you contributing to this misunderstanding OP.

why

Bro, I went off of the definition. Send a source my way, because the multiple ones I found said that an ad hominem attacks a person or an attribute of a person. Emotional state is an attribute.

I see a lot of left wingers use these types of ad hominem attacks on reddit

Maybe you argue with a lot of liberal people?

Be careful not to fall into the "Fallacy fallacy." Just because someone makes a logical fallacy by mistake doesn't mean their core argument is wrong.

Well a few misconceptions. I don't go around trying to argue with liberals on Reddit. This is more something I've observed.

Secondly, I know full well what the "fallacy fallacy" is. No need to explain it to me. But simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong nor that the fallacy fallacy was made. If I assume the argument is wrong (which I don't) because of a fallacy they made, then it's a fallacy (on me).

simply observing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong

... Yes. That is the definition of the Fallacy Fallacy. I'm glad you are on the ball.

What I'm getting at is that if you are seeing a lot of "left-wingers" make a certain mistake in their arguments, maybe you aren't seeing a lot of "non-left-wingers" arguing. Do you often see conservatives argue, or do you avoid that through circumstances of shared viewpoints?

In short, from the way you talk, it makes me think you may have a bit of a confirmation bias. There aren't many non-conservatives who use the term "left-winger".

Thanks! Next time I'm fighting with my wife I will show them this reddit post, it's irrefutable. Checkmate, b-word!

Well, if your wife tries to refocus the subject onto how you are feeling instead of what you are trying to say, then she is wrong.

That is, as long as your emotion isn't driving you to do or say anything harmful. If you're just frustrated, she shouldn't use that as an excuse to do bad things.

This is perhaps the worst explanation of ad hominem I have ever read

He's not explaining ad hominem in general, he's saying that attacking the anger of your opponent is an example of ad hominem. You're looking at a guy say "a cat is an animal" and telling him that's the worst definition of animal you've ever seen. That wasn't really the goal to begin with.

I'm not saying I thought the goal was to define the term. It's a poor explanation because it reads like someone who's never written in the English language before. What the frick is a "cocktail smoking chamber?" It would also be helpful to use an actual example that someone might encounter in real life.

Hi. Please provide a different example. Or are you just the kind of person who can only criticize but not create?

And just use Google for learning what a cocktail smoking chamber is. While you're at it, maybe Google the word "Hyperbole".

Hyperbole is not a useful rhetorical device when providing an example of a phenomenon you think people should know about.

And I think you also need to look up cocktail smoking, since you appear to think it has something to do with smoking cigarettes. Or at least for some reason you have made your fictional character believe that.

... bro. None of that matters. My core argument remains the same. I was going off of definitions and providing a passable enough example to understand.

I'm SORRY you're not satisfied with the example. Next time, make your own post about it and stop nitpicking things for no good reason. Saying "Hey, this isn't good enough for me." Without providing an example of what IS good enough for you is just being a PITA.

Disclaimer: when it comes to logical fallacies like these, they are best applied to debates and discussions where both parties are invested in coming to a legitimate exchange of ideas, and maybe even a resolution to a complicated issue. Trying to apply these logical fallacies in day-to-day interactions with your friends and coworkers is kind of silly, and may not be appropriate.

Ad hominem attacks are a bit more general than what OP has described. An ad hominem is any statement that attacks a person's conduct, character, physical attributes, motives, etc, rather than the argument that person is making. For example:

A) "I believe that society should do X"

B) "Of course you'd think that, you degenerate."

Person B has made an ad hominem statement.

They aren't addressing the point that person A made. They're just claiming that they don't have to listen to person A because they are "a degenerate" (and swap "degenerate" with pretty much anything - doesn't even have to be an "insult"). As if person A being a degenerate somehow makes the entire point they're making invalid.

Ad hominem attacks are usually fallacious, but not always. If they are offered as a means to simply end discussion, then yeah, it's probably fallacious. But there are also plenty of times when pointing out someone's character/motives/conduct can be crucial in developing a counterpoint.

A) "We should tax poor people, and not tax people who make over $1mil a year."

B) "You're just saying that because you don't want to be taxed, and you're greedy."

Person B made two ad hominem statements ("you don't want to be taxed" is attacking A's motives, and "you're greedy" is attacking A's character/conduct). Instead of addressing A's argument ("millionaires shouldn't be taxed"), they went directly to A's motives, and are attempting to discredit their whole argument based off of that single person's motive. B may be correct, but it's not a logical reason on its own to oppose A's statement, and making such a statement doesn't foster more discussion. All B's statement does is tell A that B is already biased against them, and there's likely very little that A can say to change that. And if that's the case, why are we spending time debating at all?

That's what I said, dude. If someone is addressing your emotions, ala "You're triggered so I'm going to ignore you", that is shifting focus onto the person's emotional state instead of their argument. An ad hominem.

I appreciate that, but also, as I said, it's not just pointing out someone's emotional state during an argument.

Also, if someone points out your frustrated state during an argument, it isn't an ad hominem attack unless the person is using it to end the discussion/discredit your points. It's one thing to say, "Hey, you are getting really animated about this, let's calm down so we can have a productive discussion. Now, can you please repeat what you said?" but it's another to say "You got angry, so I don't have to listen to someone who can't control their temper."

All I'm saying is that there's more nuance to it than simply, "If someone points out you got mad during an argument, that's an ad hominem."

EDIT: In a higher comment, you explicitly asked someone for better examples of ad hominem, so I feel like my original comment works. Also, just Google "ad hominem attacks" and I'm sure you'll find even better examples than mine.

Cool.

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase meaning "to the man" or "against the man".

It describes a fallacious argument strategy that attacks the person making an argument instead of their argument itself.

🤔

That's right. So unless you think that a person and their emotional state (or them being "triggered") is separate from their personhood, attacking someone's emotions instead of their argument is an ad hominem.

um...not really. It's an aside.

Ad hominem is something like, "you're stupid for thinking that" or "you're a woke libtard" or "what a bunch of sheeples". Knocking the character of the person, not the reasoning of the argument.

You seem angry, so your arguments can be ignored.

Thank you for this wonderful information. Because of this useful information now, my life is more peaceful, and I got a 7-figure job. My business got successful, and now I'm multimillionaire and planning for 5 kids with my wife. I will retire next month peacefully, and then I will do world travel. All credit goes to you. Without your information, it would not have ben possible.

When others were out partying, I studied logical fallacies.

When they were out having premarital s*x, I mastered cognitive biases.

While they wasted their days at the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated logos and ethos.

And now that the world is on fire and the barbarians are at the gate they have the audacity to come to me for help.

Jews have been officially dethroned by the s

10% blanket tariffs on all imports lmao

I'm curious how long Republicans in congress will take this, they have to be contemplating their life choices at this point.

— Kimvotesblue🇨🇦🇺🇦⚖️ (@kimvotesblue.bsky.social) 2025-04-02T14:23:45.408Z

https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile%2Falbst3r.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3llfseygpw22j%2F%2F%2F

Both Mexico and Canada have caved on tariffs pic.twitter.com/H6ktm9gimc

— Mostly Peaceful Memes (@MostlyPeacefull) April 2, 2025

BREAKING: Israel has removed all tariffs on American products. pic.twitter.com/cUgWVAhPnE

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) April 1, 2025

BREAKING: Vietnam to cut tariffs on American products to avoid President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs.

I voted for this. pic.twitter.com/VMLBBS34Kj

— Dreamy (@dreamy12122) April 1, 2025

BREAKING: Ontario Premier Doug Ford says he is willing to drop ALL of Canada’s tariffs: “We’d be willing to take those off tomorrow… he knows… we’re going to take these tariffs off in the next minute if he said he’s taking their tariffs off” pic.twitter.com/3YCksRnoe9

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) April 2, 2025

Motive unknown chuds

Why a Christian elementary school tho, what's up with that?

Strongest pooner needed weak prey, JFC

She just wanted to die where she was happiest!

I don't know if I believe a word of this but it's incredibly if true.

No way the cops the cops would cover up her wanting to kill transphobic christo fascists? Surely not.

Biden believed that and became the most unpopular dem president.

Obama and Clinton didn’t and won reelection.

Be as delulu as you want, but Dems are not going to try to win progressives again in a long while. https://t.co/luCmUzjuif

— Monjula Ray 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🥥🌴 (@queerBengali) January 25, 2025

Got hammered one night while visiting my small butt farmer town for some holiday. Met up with the boys I grew up with and they brought their cousins and relatives to a hick bar and it was a good time.

I'm known for being a jokester and giving people shit to peeps I know- who know who i am and what im about cause its a VERY small town. They know im a decent/kind dude who just says r-slurred/offensive shit for the frick of it for giggles.

Considering its a small town- outsiders (my buddy's one cousin who is not funny and whom

I never met) decides to shit talk me without me even knowing him thinking I'll just be totally cool with it.

I roll with it thinking it'll stop eventually, but it keeps going and I'm getting more pissed off. Last call comes in and I've been flirting with this 6/10 just to hook up with something for the night and she agrees to roll with it as I promised a hotel.

So after last call everyone needs a ride home. Multiple drunks driving other drunks home. Girl I was going to hook up with was gunna drive to the hotel I just booked. So I hop in the passenger seat and my buddy hops in the back (kinda weird. You know my intention and where me and 6 girl are heading, but whatever. Ur my boy and its 2 queen beds) and then The cousin who was pooping on me literally hops in cause everyone else was pissed with him too. No idea where he lives, but whatever… it's a small town. We can figure it out.

Trying to drop this cousin of my buddy's off (who is pissing me off) at his place but he can tell I'm done with his jokes. I ask where he lives so we can drop him off and be done with him. I think he thought I was going to jump him later or rob his house so he gives a vague description of where he lives so I just tell him to get out where his cousin lives nearby (my buddy) and he refuses to get out.

Now I'm getting mad. I start talking at this dude to GTFO of this truck and he still refuses. Then he dares to insult this 6/10 hog I was planning on banging and then I snapped cause that was basically an insult to me and my pride. I got out of the truck, opened the backseat and tried to get him out peacefully, but still he sat. So I just start wailing on his face till he came out.

We start boxing and I'm winning (I think). He got some darn good shots on me. Never saw stars before while getting punched but I did this night.

We continue fighting till the 6/10 yells at my buddy in the back to intervene. He tackles the cousin and that was the end of that fight and the cute twink starts walking home and my buddy hops back in.

After that we get diner food and then go back to the hotel where I attempt to use my whiskey peepee while my buddy tries to sleep in horror on the other bed.

She was an ugly horse girl. I had to explain to my extended family for the holiday dinner why I had a black eye. My buddy was mad that I fricked a horse girl in the same hotel room as him while he was trying to sleep. I had to call my buddy why I fought his cousin and his family is mad at me now. My parents were not happy cause they all go to the same church.

2/10. Not good.

Thought you would try to pressure Steve Huffman now you have to deal with Disney AND Marvel little muskie boy.

Edit: Sorry Elon you are right. My bad.

continued from part 1

if there's a part 3, i'll edit the link into this text

https://www.hitmanforum.com/t/game-breaking-ancestral-pistol-splitter-smg-bug-s/23932/20

https://www.hitmanforum.com/t/ios-communication-with-the-community/21538/205

https://www.hitmanforum.com/t/season-of-awakening-roadmap-discussion-spring-25/23855/148

@Elias_Acorn also speculates he is using the site to send himself messages, which could be true as he has 200 posts there but only one follower

1000 marseycoin says these are all him sending questions to himself

now NOBODY use that site to anonymously tell him to come here that'd be BAD

confession time, tell me something wild about yourself, it's 100% anonymous! https://t.co/1sTB36krvl

— Samir | Combatglue (@Combatglue) March 29, 2025

and nobody like this tweet

mr glue u need to check hitman forum people have discovered a bug introduced in the new patch that has softlocked the game

— Kendi Dilworth (she/her) (@KenDillgames) April 1, 2025

more info here:

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/hitman-3-world-of-assassination-final-chapter-of-the-nu-hitman-trilogy.133439/page-32#post-9379844

HItman forum is shittalking him:

Look, our dude has important CoalaTV posts to re-tweet, don't you know? Samir has his hands full with the real bedrock of a Community Manager's work.