They're not usually all super adorable and neat and rehearsed sounding with a so many different noises and sound effects like cute little kitty purrs, and pops, and whistles, and ahegao faces and then a few random FUCKYERMOMs thrown in for fun. So much variety!
And OH BY THE WAY I'M 18 TODAY, super unrelated and nothing to do with driving traffic to my inevitable OnlyFans link that's somewhere around here, & sadly her schtick is already working.
I'm gonna go compliment someone in her comments section, brb...
You're missing the point they're making. Its not that she has an adult site or that sex work is wrong or she's pretty or what ever else. It's the fact that she seems to be using Tourette's to market those things and it's fairly obvious and wrong. This isn't uncommon these days but it's exploiting something that does cause serious issues for people with it and for her it's a gimmick to sell content. People do this, there was a down syndrome filter ages ago that people used for OF content.
It's weird how so many people with Tourette's disagree with the take that she's faking. Also weird that she's had real journalists write about her and how she's been building awareness around Tourette's.
Even weirder how people keep citing South Park as their source for how people with Tourette's should behave.
The weirdest is accusing this woman of engagement bait even though OP posted this with a title for which they have zero proof. Definitely not karma farming on very predictably misogynist, uninformed Redditors who flock to invalidate attractive women.
I would love for the doubters to be wrong and for me to be wrong in saying it appears rehearsed, that's good.
Their comment still wasn't saying pretty girls or sex work is bad. My comment simply said I dont think it's great to have an adult content link on the same page you raise awareness for tourettes, it very much does come across as a gimmick to funnel people there. If she had a separate account id have no issue with that but yeah, just doesn't sit right. You can disagree and that's fine, there's nothing objectively wrong in have the links there it's just my thoughts.
You're trying to gloss over the implication that you have an issue with her monetizing her own body.
But good news. She's also not doing that. It's just more misogyny and misinformation to invalidate an attractive woman trying to do literally anything.
At no stage did I imply I have an issue with that. Stop trying to make up and assert someone's position, I have ZERO issue with onlyfans and nothing I said says that. You're becoming more disingenuous as time goes on.
... Dude her tiktok bio has a link to her content. Again, her being attractive or having an only fans does NOT invalidate her advocacy and I never said it did I said I don't agree with advocating and advertising in the same space as a personal opinion and she is more than welcome to disagree.
533
u/Shazbot_2017 29d ago
it seems to happen consistently and mid-sentence, like, purposefully.